Hansard, 1996-10-10

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 6th to 13th October, 1996. Mr K. Shanmugam - from 7th to 19th October, 1996. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan - from 8th to 17th October, 1996. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong - from 8th to 13th October, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 8th to 9th October and from 12th to 18th October, 1996. RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 9th to 17th October, 1996. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 9th to 12th October, 1996. Mr Davinder Singh - on 10th October, 1996. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 11th to 13th October, 1996. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 11th to 13th October, 1996. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap - from 11th to 18th October, 1996. Dr Ow Chin Hock - from 12th to 25th October, 1996. Dr Aline K. Wong - from 12th to 15th October, 1996. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 13th to 23rd October and from 26th to 28th October, 1996. Mr Lee Yiok Seng - from 14th to 24th October, 1996. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 15th to 19th October, 1996. Mr Peter Sung - from 16th to 31st October, 1996. Mr Ho Kah Leong - from 18th to 26th October, 1996. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - from 18th to 24th October, 1996. Mr Bernard Chen - from 21st October to 3rd November, 1996. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 21st to 25th October, 1996. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 10th to 12th November, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 27th September 1996 (i) Hijacking and Protection of Aircraft (Amendment) Bill (ii) Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill; and (iii) Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Law, in view of the Government's decision not to grant nominal rental to landowners of properties for the North-East MRT line who wish to rent them back, whether he will consider revising the method of determining market rental so as to alleviate possible hardship caused to such landowners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained in the last sitting of Parliament, the Government has already made a concession, by allowing former owners of acquired properties to remain on the premises after the Government has paid them full compensation. The Government will allow them to continue to occupy the premises up to the scheduled date for Land Office to take over the land, provided they pay market rental to Land Office as assessed by the Chief Valuer. Land Office has a simple formula for assessing the market rental for letting out vacant land on short-term Temporary Occupation Licences (TOL). It is 6% per annum of the freehold value of the land. However, this formula is not appropriate for assessing the rentals on the different types of built-up properties acquired for the North-East Line. Yields on residential and commercial properties are typically much lower than 6%. Furthermore, unlike in previous acquisitions, when the Government would take over the land soon after the acquisition, this time the owners may opt to remain on site, even after receiving full compensation, and then stay on for several years in the acquired property on tenancy agreements of up to three years, and not just for a short term TOL, provided they pay market rentals. My Ministry has received numerous appeals from the Member for Thomson GRC, Dr Lau Teik Soon, and others to alleviate the hardships faced by the affected owners as much as possible. The Government sympathises with these appeals. I believe some of the concerns arise because the owners believe that Land Office will fix rentals on the acquired properties at 6% of freehold value. This worry is misplaced, because this was never Land Office's intention. Arising from these appeals, my Ministry asked Land Office and Chief Valuer to clarify their basis for assessing market rentals on acquired properties. Land Office has recommended pegging rentals to the likely yields of the different types of properties. The Chief Valuer has advised that under present market conditions, in the case of freehold properties, the annual market rentals of the acquired properties amount to about 1.5% of the statutory compensation award for landed properties, 2.5% for flats, 2.8% for shophouses and 3% for shops. Rentals on other types of property will be determined on a case-by-case basis. These are substantially lower than the 6% formula used for vacant land on TOL. The Government has accepted these recommendations. In addition, the Government will make a further concession to ex-owners who were occupying the properties when they were acquired. These owner-occupiers may need to stay on at the acquired properties for an interim period after receiving their full compensation, pending their final relocation. Therefore, for these owner-occupiers, the Government will phase in the assessed market rental over three years. Eligible owners will thus pay one-third of the full assessed rental in the first year, two-thirds in the second year, and the full assessed rental only in the third year. From the fourth year onwards, the rental will be subject to revision to reflect market conditions then prevailing. Take, for example, an acquired terrace house with a statutory compensation award of $1.2 million. The assessed rental will be typically $1,500 per month. If the owner is an owner-occupier, after the property has been acquired he will pay only $500 per month in the first year, $1,000 per month in the second year, and the full amount of $1,500 per month only in the third year.

Sir, first, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for reviewing the basis for the market rentals which in my view is very favourable to the residents and I am sure they will receive the new basis favourably. My supplementary question is whether or not, in view of the revised basis for the market rentals, the Ministry will consider expediting the payment of full compensation if the occupiers have given up vacant possession.

Sir, I have asked Land Office to, as far as possible, expedite payment. Of course, the Commissioner of Lands has the duty to ensure that the titles are good and the payments are made to the right parties. But certainly the Land Office would expedite payment and, in fact, they have beefed up their manpower. Once verification of title is complete, payment can be made expeditiously.

asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry will give higher or equal priority to residents living in close proximity to a school, compared to applicants who are affiliated to the school, in the registration for admission of Primary One pupils into a school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Primary 1 Registration Scheme, parents with school connections are given priority to register their children under Phase 2B. Since the registration exercise last year, I have limited the number of places in Phase 2B to 50% of the places available after Phase 2A. This is to ensure that there will be places available in almost all primary schools for children who live near the school and whose parents are not affiliated to the school. With this 50% cap on Phase 2B, children who live near the school already have an equal or better chance as Phase 2B applicants of getting into the school, In this year's P1 Registration Exercise, only 2,226 children or 4.3% of the total applicants secured places under Phase 2B. Out of our total of 193 primary schools, 192 schools had vacancies in Phase 2C for children who live near the school. There is therefore no need to amend the Registration Scheme to achieve what the Member wishes.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he could give us details on the number of schools where the residents living within a kilometre, or under Phase 2C, are unable to gain admission to the schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the details but I will give it to the Member later on.

Sir, for these schools that were not able to accommodate the children under Phase 2C, would the Ministry consider expanding the number of classes and even the class size so as to accommodate these children?

Sir, this has already been done as far as possible. But we must not put in too many children in the school; otherwise it would be difficult for the school to cope with the large number. Where possible, the schools have already done so.

asked the Minister for Health whether more stringent measures will be taken by his Ministry to stop beauticians from giving medical treatment, including surgical procedures, to their customers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Health is reviewing the relevant legislation with a view to increasing the penalty for beauticians giving medical treatment, including surgical procedures, to their customers. This includes raising the current maximum fine of $500 and the imposition of a custodial sentence. Meanwhile, the Ministry will step up enforcement action on such unlawful medical practices by beauticians. Members of the public with specific information on such illegal practices may provide the details to the Ministry for follow up action. The Ministry will also continue to educate and remind the public that they should seek the services of qualified medical practitioners for cosmetic surgery and other medical treatments.

Sir, while the Ministry is reviewing the legislation for beauticians, maybe they should also consider those slimming centres if there are any instances whereby they should be looked into.

Sir, in reviewing the legislation we would certainly take that into consideration.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Kanwaljit Soin 4. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is any specific protocol or procedure followed by the police in the questioning of minors, especially those who are mentally abnormal.

Question No. 4, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Police follow strict procedures when dealing with minors, ie, those who are 16 years and below, who are arrested. While the law allows the Police to detain persons of all ages for up to 48 hours, procedurally, officers are directed not to detain minors for more than four hours unless there are extenuating circumstances to justify longer detention. In such instances, clearance from supervisors of at least the Chief Investigating Officer level who is a police officer of inspector rank or above would have to be sought. Sir, police also exercise great care when interviewing minors. Officers will assess if a minor is able to communicate properly and understand the questions being asked. Depending on the nature of the case and the mental state of the minor, his parents or relatives may be invited to be present during the interview if the police deem that they could help in the interview. For a minor who is mentally abnormal, specialists in the training of such children may also be called in to assist in the interview.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Kanwaljit Soin 5. To ask the Minister for Communications if he will consider instituting measures to modify the dangerous practice of transporting workers in open pick-up trucks.

Question No. 5, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, owners of goods vehicles are allowed to transport their workers on their trucks, as this helps them to utilise their goods vehicles more productively. When they do so, they have to observe several safety rules. For example, there is a maximum number of workers that they can carry on the trucks depending on the size of the trucks; the passengers must be seated while the vehicle is in motion; and protective railings must be fitted along both sides of the vehicles. There is also a 50 kph speed limit imposed on all goods vehicles. There is no necessity at this moment to change the rules. The Land Transport Authority has reminded owners of goods vehicles of these rules, and is working with the Traffic Police to step up enforcement to ensure that the rules are observed.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Kanwaljit Soin 6. To ask the Minister for National Development if he will define which grassroots leaders are given priority in Housing and Development Board flat allocations and whether the definition can be broadened to include citizens who do charity work in voluntary welfare organisations.

Question No. 6, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB grants priority allocation of flats to grassroots leaders under the Grassroots Organisations Priority Scheme. At present, 5% of the flats offered in HDB estates are set aside for the Scheme. Under the Scheme, the grassroots leaders must meet the HDB eligibility conditions on citizenship, income ceiling, family nucleus and non-ownership of private property. In addition, they must have at least three years of continuous service, immediately prior to their flat applications, in the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC), Community Centre Management Committee (CCMC), Youth Executive Committee (YEC), Women Executive Committee (WEC), Residents' Committee (RC) or Boys' Club Management Committee (BCMC). At the time the grassroots leaders take possession of the flats that they have selected, they must still be serving members in the grassroots organisations. They also cannot transfer their flats which are allocated under priority to another family member or sell them in the open market within five years. As at August of this year, there are about 130,000 applicants for HDB flats. HDB does not intend to broaden the Grassroots Organisations Priority Scheme. Those who do charity work in voluntary welfare organisations would be recognised in other ways.

Sir, may I confirm with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the 5% allocation to grassroots leaders is based on every quarter of the new flats, including the mature estates. Secondly, I would like to know what is the rationale for granting the grassroots leaders such an advantage or priority in allocation of HDB flats.

The answer to the first question is yes. As to his second question, priority allocation of flats to grassroots leaders is part and parcel of their work in the community. Those who get priority allocation of flats within the constituency they serve or nearby to the constituency they serve will continue to work within the constituency. They get priority allocation so that they do not have to move far away and have to travel long distances to get back to the constituency to serve. Those who opt to go to new estates are then contacted and they set up the RCs and CCCs in the new estates that they have moved into. We do not then have to gather people who have no experience in grassroots work to start off those organisations.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says that the reason is that it is part and parcel of the work and the regulations allow grassroots leaders who move to another estate to join the grassroots organisation in the new constituency. So would that not be inconsistent with the original purpose of justification that it is part and parcel of their work, they live and serve in the constituency and therefore they should be given priority allocation for flats within the constituency?

Sir, I am afraid Mr Low did not understand my answer. I will say it again. For those who move to new estates, these are brand new estates, and there were no residents before, but now there may be 10,000-20,000 new residents coming in over the years, so they need grassroots organisations to serve the community there. How best to then form those organisations? From among those people who have no experience in grassroots work or should we not get people who have many years of grassroots experience to start off those community organisations? Therefore, those people who have served before in their old constituencies, who have opted to move to new estates, get the priority to go into those new estates and they are then invited to kick off those community organisations there, thereby continuing their work as well as bring experience to the new organisations that they start.

Sir, how does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary define "new estate"? I understand that most new flats are built within an established constituency. So do you define that as a new estate?

Sir, nearby to Mr Low's constituency, he may find large tracts of land being cleared and flats that are being built, for example, in the Punggol area and Sengkang area. When the new residents move in, they need grassroots organisations to serve them too.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary gives the reason of proximity for priority allocation for those doing constituency work. Will the same reason of proximity not also apply to those doing volunteer work in welfare organisations in the vicinity?

Sir, the priority allocation of HDB flats to grassroots leaders is not a reward. It is not to recognise their voluntary work. It is part and parcel of the role of grassroots leaders in serving the whole community within which they live or serve. Grassroots leaders have to spearhead Government campaigns, gather feedback from the residents to be passed on through the various channels to the Government Ministries, organise events to celebrate traditional and cultural events, festivals and many other things of this sort. Where they live is important. There are many other voluntary organisations and they are doing very good work. We should appreciate them, but recognise them in other ways rather than to give them priority for flats.

Sir, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary saying that people who do charitable work are not important to be able to know the community which they live in so that they could better assist the community in need of charitable work? One example of a charitable organisation which is basically community-based is the Family Service Centres. So Family Service Centres would need charitable workers who live around the constitutency so that they would understand the problems and needs of the constituency. Therefore, in terms of proximity, I think they should be granted the same priority as the grassroots leaders.

Mr Low, are you making a speech or asking a question?

I am asking the opinion of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

The question is out of order. Questions shall not solicit opinions.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the reason is that grassroots leaders have to do work in that particular area. My point is that it would seem to me that priority allocation for HDB flats is perceived as a reward. Is it not possible also to give that same kind of reward to those who do volunteer work in the vicinity in the same way as for grassroots work? I would again ask for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's opinion as to whether one views charity work on the same level as that of grassroots work.

Sir, it is incorrect to perceive priority allocation of HDB flats to grassroots leaders as a reward. If it is so perceived, then it is a wrong perception. It is part and parcel of community development within their housing estates. I have never made a comparison between charitable work and grassroots work. It is incorrect to say one is more important than the other. They are both important and they are both recognised in many ways, for example, in National Day honours, in various other events organised to appreciate their contributions. Priority allocation of HDB flats is not a reward. So I do not think we should put them together and discuss them in the same manner.

Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry care to review the basis for the allocation of priority housing for grassroots leaders in the light of his comment regarding charitable welfare organisations? It would seem to me that those working in volunteer welfare organisations would also deserve proximity to their place of work in the charitable welfare organisations on the same basis as for grassroots leaders. Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary care to comment on this, please?

Sir, grassroots work in the community is location specific. Charitable work takes many forms. There are those which happen in the centres set up in various parts of the island and many volunteers go to those centres to do their work. There are also centres which are set up within different constituencies which not only serve those constituencies but other people who are in need. It is very difficult to say who deserves what kind of reward. Again, may I say that it is not a reward for grassroots leaders and I think we should separate the two issues.

12.53 pm

The motion standing in the name of Mr Imram bin Mohamed is subject to signification of support by at least one Member present. Does the motion have the support of any hon. Member?

Yes, Sir.

All right. Mr Imram.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplant Act (Chapter 131A of the 1988 Revised Edition). Sir, Muslims are excluded from the Human Organ Transplant Act. Muslims who wish to pledge their kidneys for donation after their death do so under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act. The Amendment Bill that I propose to introduce will, in essence, allow Muslims to enjoy the enhanced legal protection and safeguards which the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) provides whilst still maintaining the present voluntary method of making the pledges to donate their kidneys. However, there is one problem. I have discussed the Bill with the Minister for Health and he is of the opinion that there is insufficient time for the Bill to go through. As kidney transplant has been a sensitive issue with Muslims, he would like the Bill to go through a Select Committee stage to allow the public to comment and give feedback. A similar view was expressed by the Mufti of Singapore and other officials of the Muslim Religious Council in my meeting with them. Though they think the proposed Bill is beneficial for Muslims, the Muslim public ought to be given time to adequately understand the purpose of the Bill. And time there is not enough. Parliament will have to be dissolved on 5th January 1997 latest or earlier if an election is called earlier. The Bill will not be able to get through the Select Committee stage to a final reading before that date. As such, Sir, I would like to beg leave now to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main objectives of this Bill are four-fold: Firstly, to empower the Law Society to take actions against solicitors who render inadequate professional services; Secondly, to introduce new provisions relating to the issue of practising certificates; Thirdly, to prohibit any newly admitted solicitor from practising as a sole proprietor or in partnership unless he satisfies certain requirements; and Fourthly, to amend the requirements for the admission of Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. Sir, these amendments have been finalised after consultations with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Law Society. Actions against solicitors who provide inadequate services Let me take the first category of amendments. Sir, over the years, members of the public have complained about inadequate professional services provided by some solicitors. The problem is that unless such inadequacy amounts to professional misconduct, no action can be taken against such a solicitor. The dissatisfied clients are left therefore without adequate remedies. To rectify this unsatisfactory situation, new section 75B in clause 13 and new Second Schedule (clause 16) will enable the Law Society to take certain actions against such a solicitor. These include limiting the costs that he can recover from his client, and directing him to rectify the deficiency in his work and to compensate his client. This provision is modelled on a similar provision in the United Kingdom Solicitors Act and I believe it will ensure better services to Singaporeans. This new provision will be brought into force when the Law Society sets up the necessary administrative machinery. Issuance of practising certificates Sir, as the law now stands, the Registrar of the Supreme Court has no discretion but to issue practising certificates even to solicitors who are convicted of criminal offences or are found guilty of professional misconduct, pending their appeal against the convictions or findings. In recent years, some of these solicitors went on to commit further offences (such as criminal breach of trust and cheating) or misconducted themselves during this period. Also, solicitors who have been discharged from bankruptcy or have completed their periods of suspension for professional misconduct can still practise without restriction or supervision. This situation is clearly not in the public interest. Last year, the Law Society and the Registrar of the Supreme Court set up a Committee to consider the need to provide in the Act for the suspension of a solicitor's practising certificate and the imposition of conditions in certain specified circumstances, such as after his discharge from bankruptcy and after the expiry of his suspension from practice. They concluded that such a need existed so as to protect the public interest. The Chief Justice and the Attorney-General agree with this view. The proposed measures would, to a large extent, pre-empt any wrongdoing by such solicitors. Clauses 5 and 8 of the Bill therefore seek to insert new sections 25A, 25B, 27A and 27B to implement the recommendations of this working committee. If I may quickly take the House through these new sections. New section 25A empowers the Attorney-General and the Council of the Law Society to request the Registrar of the Supreme Court not to issue a practising certificate to a solicitor or to issue a practising certificate subject to conditions. The conditions include asking the solicitor concerned to produce an Accountant's Report two or three times a year to the Law Society or to disallow him to practise on his own account. New section 25B is to safeguard the interest of that solicitor by providing for an appeal by him to a judge against such a decision of the Registrar. New section 27A similarly empowers the Attorney-General and the Council to apply to a judge to order the imposition of conditions on the current or existing practising certificate of a solicitor if any of the same circumstances specified in the new section 25A are satisfied. The section also provides that a solicitor may apply to a judge to reconsider such an imposition when fresh circumstances arise. New section 27B empowers the Attorney-General and the Council to apply to a judge, and a judge on the hearing of an application made under this section, to make a request to the Law Society to refer the solicitor to a Disciplinary Committee and to order that his current practising certificate be suspended. Let me explain that this will be for urgent cases and cases of sufficient gravity where action must be taken promptly. In other words, it is not appropriate to wait for the more elaborate and time-consuming procedures set out in the other provisions of the Act such as waiting for the Inquiry Committee to have its deliberations, the report and a Disciplinary Committee may have to be formed, and so on. Sir, these new provisions are similar to the provisions in the UK Solicitors Act. The Law Society or the Attorney-General would exercise these powers judiciously and invoke them when they have information to establish that a solicitor's continuation in practice free of conditions or at all would not be in the interest of the public or the profession. The exercise of these powers is quite different and separate from the institution of formal disciplinary proceedings under the Act. It is essentially an administrative function to exercise control, not to punish. The Registrar, in issuing practising certificates, needs to be satisfied that they are issued to fit and proper persons. The imposition of conditions, instead of refusing to issue a practising certificate at all, will also safeguard the public interest in cases where the solicitor's conduct is such that some checks are needed but it is not necessary or fair to deprive the solicitor altogether the right to practise. Let me turn to the third category of amendments. Prohibition of newly-admitted solicitors to practise as sole proprietor or in partnership In October 1993, I had raised with the Law Society my concern about the large number of law firms which were sole proprietorships. Some 47% of all law firms were then sole-proprietors with one-lawyer firms, operating independently without employing even legal assistants. My concern, amongst other things, was that the situation, if left unchecked, would impede the process of raising the quality of legal services to meet the challenges of regionalisation and globalisation of Singapore's economy. I then proposed that new entrants to the legal profession should not be allowed to practise as sole-proprietors for the first three to five years of their careers. The Law Society subsequently set up a committee to study the matter and later agreed with my proposal to restrict newly admitted solicitors from practising as sole proprietors or in partnerships. The Law Society has therefore recommended that a solicitor must complete a legal practice management course and have a number of years of practical experience before he can practise as a sole proprietor. The Government has accepted these recommendations. Accordingly, new section 75C (clause 13) provides that a solicitor must complete a legal practice management course prescribed by the Law Society and have been in practice for a period of three continuous years or three years out of five years in the aggregate to be entitled to practise as a sole proprietor. However, he may set up partnership with another solicitor of such standing. The Law Society may, with the approval of the Minister, waive the requirements if the solicitor concerned has gained substantial experience in law in Singapore or elsewhere. Such restriction on newly admitted solicitors is not new and comparable provisions can be found in the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong. Sir, this new provision will be brought into force when the Law Society is ready to run the said management course and will only apply to solicitors admitted on or after the date it is brought into force. In other words, it will have prospective effect. Let me also clarify that this new provision will not affect the right of law lecturers in the National University of Singapore to give opinions and act in an advisory capacity under section 34(h) of the Legal Profession Act. Admission of QCs in criminal cases Let me turn to the admission of Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. Sir, the provision relating to the admission of Queen's Counsels was last amended in 1991 to add an additional condition for allowing them to appear in our courts. That condition is that the court must be satisfied that the case is of "sufficient difficulty and complexity" to warrant a QC to be admitted. At that time in this House I had made it clear that the Government's policy was that QCs should only be admitted for complex and difficult cases where the necessary knowledge or experience was not available from or could not be provided by local counsel. I also stressed then that the intention was to favour the admission of QCs particularly in banking and commercial cases. The general policy of allowing QCs to appear in our courts remains unchanged. However, there should be less need for QCs in criminal cases with the growth of the Criminal Bar in the last five years, not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of advocacy skills, experience and expertise. Since 1991, only 10 QCs have been admitted to appear in criminal cases in Singapore and I am told that out of the nine cases dealt with by QCs, only two cases were successful. Presently, there are 89 criminal lawyers who are designated as senior counsel and 125 criminal lawyers who are designated as junior counsel for the purposes of the Assignment List of the High Court for capital cases. There is no shortage therefore of criminal lawyers in the local Bar who have the confidence to undertake all criminal cases without having to rely on Queen's Counsels. I should add that it is also important to note that our criminal process and criminal law are, except for basic principles, quite different from English criminal law and procedure. Our Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act are all based on Indian law and not on English criminal law and procedure and evidence. Many of our criminal statutes were enacted to meet local circumstances. Queen's counsels, in general, are not familiar with our criminal justice system. Indeed, Sir, I should also say that as a result, we have even experienced some cases of our criminal justice system being distorted in the foreign media. Eventually, we should do away with representation by Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. But this should be looked at again when we have an adequate number of Senior Counsel practising at the Criminal Bar. I am using the term "Senior Counsel" as spelt out in the Legal Profession Act which provides for the status of Senior Counsel. The Senate of the Academy of Law, in fact, is now about to appoint such Senior Counsel. In 1989, when the Legal Profession Act was amended to provide for Senior Counsel I said, and I quote: " ... only those lawyers who by virtue of their ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience of the law who deserve the distinction and the title of Senior Counsel will be appointed. Our Senior Counsel will, in effect, be the local equivalent of Queen's Counsel in England and it is hoped that these leaders at the Bar will provide the inspiration for the younger members of the profession to strive for excellence in their profession.". The present amendments will restrict the admission of QCs unless the applicant can show that there is any special reason for the need for a QC. It will be for the court to determine what a special reason is for this purpose. This amendment is provided for in the new section 21(1A) (clause 3). I should add that the amendment does not affect the existing provision for admission of QCs in civil cases. Prohibition against solicitors using the title of "consultant" If I may go on to other amendments. One concerns the prohibition against solicitors using the title of "consultant". This arises from a request from the Law Society. In recent years, a common practice has emerged for solicitors to use the title "consultant". It is felt that a consultant should be someone with the necessary expertise backed by sufficient experience. A new section 75D is therefore provided to preclude solicitors from using the term "consultant" unless they have been, for 10 years, a solicitor in practice, a legal officer, or a full-time member of the Faculty of Law or a combination of these positions. Apart from these, I wish to take the House through some other amendments which I should highlight. Clause 2, Sir, amends section 14 to enable a former Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court or a former Attorney-General to be a pupil master upon ceasing to hold such office. The reason for this amendment is clear in that such office holders are eminently qualified to be pupil masters. I think their experience and knowledge would greatly benefit the pupils who are under their wings. Clause 4 amends section 25 to require a solicitor to obtain a certificate of non-indebtedness from the Singapore Academy of Law for his statutory payments as well as a certificate from the Law Society that he has paid any disciplinary penalty imposed on him before he can be issued with a practising certificate. This amendment was proposed by the Chief Justice and Law Society. Why? It is to deter solicitors from defaulting in their statutory payments. Members may be surprised to be told that as at the end of last month there were 435 solicitors who have not paid up their annual subscriptions to the Academy. The Law Society has informed me that there are two solicitors who have still not paid up their statutory penalties for professional misconduct. This is a sad state of affairs and would bring the legal profession into disrepute if not remedied. Clause 6 amends section 26 to enable a Judicial Commissioner who has held the office for three or more years to appear and plead in Court after he has left the office. This amendment will remove a disincentive to solicitors who wish to serve on the High Court bench for short periods of time as Judicial Commissioners. Clause 9 amends section 30 to provide for the appointment of Senior Counsel by a Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Judges of Appeal instead of the Senate of the Academy of Law. This is a technical amendment. It is not appropriate for practising lawyers in the Senate of the Academy to be involved in the selection process because of potential conflict of interests. Finally, Sir, there are two other amendments which were proposed by the Law Society. This is clause 10 which re-enacts section 56 to enable the Law Society to appoint a Treasurer and an additional Vice-President. These additional offices would improve the administration of the Law Society. Clause 11 amends section 59 to enable the Law Society to form a company for the purpose of carrying out its functions. This amendment is for the better management of its affairs. To sum up, Sir, these amendments are the result of periodic reviews of the Act. Their main thrust is to further safeguard the public interest and raise the quality of the legal services and the standard of professional conduct of our solicitors. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as outlined by the Minister for Law, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill finetunes the issuance of a practising certificate to a solicitor who wishes to practise in Singapore. Amongst other measures, it spells out the conditions which can be imposed on a solicitor when he is issued a practising certificate and circumstances under which an existing certificate can be suspended. In the past, it was an all or nothing approach, either issue or do not issue. This modulated approach is to be welcomed as it would help to prevent wrongdoing by solicitors. The Bill also gives the Law Society new powers to act against solicitors who provide inadequate services. In addition, the Bill sets a new requirement that a solicitor has to be employed for not less than three continuous years after being admitted as a solicitor before he can be a sole proprietor or a partner of a law firm. I welcome these amendments which are aimed at upgrading the quality and maintaining the integrity of advocates and solicitors. I am sure that they will help to improve the overall standard of legal service in Singapore. Thus, the public interest will be advanced. The Bill also introduces an amendment to section 21 of the principal Act under clause 3 in respect of a Queen's Counsel which states, and I quote: "The court shall not admit a person under this section in any criminal case unless the court is satisfied that there is a special reason to do so." To a layman, it is not clear to whom the word "person" refers to in the above quotation - whether he is an internationally renowned criminal lawyer or a Queen's Counsel. The term "a special reason" is also too general and not adequately specific. In a criminal case, it is not clear under what circumstances a defendant is entitled to engage a QC for his defence. It may be desirable to spell out clearly the conditions under which a QC can be admitted to a court in Singapore to argue a criminal case. By restricting Queen's Counsels to handle criminal cases only, clause 3 implies that QCs are allowed to be admitted in civil cases. This indicates that our criminal lawyers can adequately handle most criminal cases which involve factual evidence, where civil cases can be much more complicated. However, criminal proceedings can lead to serious consequences such as capital punishment. In such cases, the possible loss of a human life is involved. We should therefore ensure that we have adequate good criminal lawyers to defend defendants who may be innocent. In the legal history in Singapore, the late Mr David Marshall was an outstanding criminal lawyer. We should have more capable criminal lawyers like him before we totally depend on local lawyers in handling criminal cases. Hence, the term "a special reason" in the above quotation should be defined widely and clearly so that defendants can still benefit from the services of a QC. Singapore has been outstanding in the world in maintaining law and order. What distinguishes Singapore from many other countries is that the law here is transparent and fair and the enforcement of the law is effective. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill will no doubt further upgrade the quality of the legal profession and certainly deserves our support. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, let me at the outset declare my interest as an advocate and solicitor and a member of the Faculty of Law. The amendments that the Minister proposed are all very good amendments and I think they will make the legal profession much stronger and better. But I would like to concentrate, if I may, on two provisions - new section 75C and section 75D and to relate that to a class of legally trained people whose interests have not actually been addressed in these amendments. I refer to people who after graduation do not go into practice or join the legal service but choose to do something else. Many of these people go out and join companies, for example, or they may go abroad and do other things. One of my classmates became a missionary. This kind of amendments, although the aim is clear and good, forgets the people who do not enter practice and legal service, because such people will not qualify either to be partners or to be sole proprietors, except by consent of the Law Society. For example, if you get someone graduating from the Law Faculty in 1997, he goes out, he joins a listed company, he rises through the ranks, he becomes chief legal officer of a large multi-national company, and he spends maybe 10, 15, 20 years there. When he comes out, he has not had a single year of practice and therefore has no right to be a partner or sole proprietor, unless he joins an established firm which he might not want to do or unless the Law Society and the Minister give him approval. May I suggest that is anomalous and that some provision should be made for people who have acquired this kind of experience to have, as a matter of right, the ability to set up practice on their own without the say-so of the Law Society, if I may it put that way. The other little problem, if I may point out, relates more specifically to the Law Faculty. As the Minister knows, we have had a tradition in the Law Faculty of some of our academics appearing in court - Prof. Tommy Koh, for example, in the 1970s and more recently, Assoc. Prof. Jeffrey Pinsler and myself. Under section 34(h) of the Legal Profession Act, full-time members of the Faculty may give advice. So there is no problem there. But to appear in court, one has to take out a practising certificate. Under the provisions, as presently drafted, before the amendments, we either take out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor or we take out a practising certificate as a consultant to an existing firm. The amendments do not affect anyone in the Law Faculty presently but they will affect the new recruits that we take in after the amendments become law. For these new recruits, it will not be possible for them to take out a practising certificate as a nominal sole proprietor, because of that three-year bar. And even if they have been with the Faculty for 10 years, they are still not allowed to take out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor. The reason why they have to take out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor is because there is no other provision in the Act catering for academics to appear in court. So we do it that way. The alternative to taking out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor is to take it out as a consultant. The reason why this is done is to make it clear that the affiliation is not an employment affiliation as such, that we take it as a consultant to a law firm on instructions of the instructing solicitor. For example, my colleague, Prof. Jeffrey Pinsler, did it that way when he appeared as amicus curiae in a recent case. With new section 75D, you cannot take out a practising certificate as a consultant unless you have 10 years' practice and that means that our young law lecturers are neither here nor there. They cannot take out a practising certificate in their own name because of section 75C. They cannot take it out as a consultant because of section 75D. They can only take out a practising certificate as an employee of an existing firm or as a partner of an existing firm. And may I suggest to the Minister that that is not desirable. The Faculty is not in the business of joining up with any specific firms. The reason why law academics take out a practising certificate is to appear in the occasional case where there is an interesting and important point of law to be argued as, for example, in the constitutional reference in which I was involved last year. The point is not to allow law academics to run a practice on the side. From the Faculty and University's point of view, this is certainly not desirable. The only reason why it is necessary for us to take out a practising certificate is so that we can allow our academics the occasional appearance in court to hone their skills as law teachers. It is doubly important when we are talking about young lecturers. Because, as the Minister well knows, we are constantly trying to retain our good people against the lure of private practice and now the lure of the Legal Service. And allowing them this right of audience in court gives us a little bit of an edge to keep these bright young people. The bright young people that we want to keep are in great demand outside as well. What we are doing now with this amendment is inadvertently closing that door. The young graduate who comes out of our law school, he does very well academically, he does not feel that he is a proper lawyer until he has won his spurs on the field of battle, as it were, by appearing in court and actually arguing a case. And here we have closed the door to him. We are saying to him, "You can't do this. You can't take out your practising certificate. You have to join a firm as an employee." May I suggest to the Minister that some thought be given to this particular problem, that some amendments, when the Act is next amended, be put in to cater for these two classes of people - the ones who do not go straight into practice and the ones who remain in the Law Faculty. May I also ask the Minister perhaps to think about an amendment to section 34(h). The problem with the practising certificate route for academics is that it is very hard to police. Once the fellow has a practising certificate, legally you cannot stop him doing things like conveyancing, for example, all of which are not part of what the Faculty should be doing. If we could amend section 34(h) to give a limited right of audience to members of the Law Faculty, that would be, I think, the solution. Why Law Faculty? It is just like the Medical Faculty. We are training professionals and therefore we have to have this practical experience ourselves. I am not asking it for this kind of things for the existing members of the Law Faculty because these amendments do not affect the existing members of the Faculty. I am asking this for the future members of the Faculty so that we can keep our bright young graduates, the ones that everyone else wants. We want to be able to keep these people in academia to train our future lawyers in order to raise the standard of profession. And without this access to right of audience in court, I think we lose a very big dimension of that. You would not think that a surgery lecturer would be any good if he never actually cuts somebody. It is the same thing with law lecturers that you have to give them this occasional right to appear in court to hone their skills and basically to provide another dimension which would improve the quality of their teaching so that the graduates' quality also improves. With these two very small suggestions, may I say that I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the Bill. First, let me declare my interest as a pupil in a law firm. Let me say that I support the Bill and what I would like to do is to seek some clarifications as a result of concerns on the part of some new solicitors. This has to do with section 75C under clause 13 of the Bill. As the Minister has stated, section 75C states that a solicitor must complete successfully a legal practice management course and must have at least three years' practice in a legal firm in Singapore before he can be a sole proprietor or in partnership. What I would like to ask the Minister is to clarify if he is aware of the contents of the course and what the legal practice management syllabus is going to be. But more important, whether it is going to be an examinable subject or it is one which requires the new solicitor to attend and complete the course successfully. And also whether or not this course will be conducted during the three-year period or after he has completed the three-year period in practice. Because if it is after the three-year practice, it means prolonging the period for such new solicitors who want to be sole proprietors. The second clarification has to do with new section 75C(3) which is in a way an exemption of section 75C(1) because section 75C(3) states that a solicitor who does not have three years' practice can be a partner in a firm with a solicitor who has three years or more of practice. And it does not say that a solicitor with more than three years' practice needs to go through the legal practice management course. So, in fact, you can have a situation where a new solicitor who has three years' practice can have one person who has not got three years' practice to be a partner, both of whom have of course not gone through the legal practice management course. I do not know whether or not that is desirable. The third clarification, Sir, is a general one. As the Minister has stated in October 1993, he expressed the Government's concern with regard to the large number of one-lawyer law firms. And it is arising from his concern that some of these new amendments are now being enacted, embodying solutions to some of these problems. My question is: by having these amendments now, whether the Minister and the Government are satisfied that these amendments would have addressed his concern and, if so, whether the Minister can give an assurance that no further amendments, measures or curbs will be contemplated in the future to control the sole proprietorship of small firms?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support and comments. If I may take the points in the order in which they were made. First, the Chairman of the GPC for Law, Dr Ker Sin Tze. His main question was about the definition of "special reason". There are two ways in which we could have handled this. One is for Parliament itself to have spelt out in the provisions in an exhaustive way all the possible special reasons. But our preference was to draft it in such a way that we would leave it to the courts to decide what the special reasons would be. I think that is the better approach just as the existing provision in respect of QCs leaves the discretion to the court when it says, as a general criterion, "if the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty or complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case." That is the general criterion. From the general criterion, when we come to the specific matter of criminal cases, there will now be a further criterion for criminal cases that the court is satisfied that there is a special reason to do so. Between the two approaches, I think it is better to take this approach and leave it to the court. If he were to press me to indicate an example of a criminal case which I think would constitute a special reason, there could be a criminal case where an important constitutional law issue arises as to whether some constitutional rights have been or have not been breached, or whether the regulations or the Act under which the person is being charged raises the question of conformity with some provisions of the Constitution. So it then becomes not just a criminal case on the particular set of facts, but broader and more fundamental questions may be raised, and one can argue that this could be a "special reason". I give this as an indicative example. But I think it is better to leave it to the courts. The courts have had experience in handling such applications and I am sure we can leave it to their wisdom to decide what are the special reasons. What is important is that the legislative intent is what I have said in my speech. And if I may very quickly sum it up, it is that Queen's Counsel, as a feature in our legal landscape, is an exception to the norm. In fact, we are one of the few countries in the world which permits Queen's Counsels. As I said in 1991 and as I have briefly alluded to in my speech, it was never meant to be a permanent feature of our scheme. We had it way back in our statutes for good reason when our own legal profession was in its infancy. But we have developed our legal profession a long way since the early days of our Legal Profession Act. We have not completely abolished QCs. But the legislative intent is that we will progressively reduce our dependence on it, commensurate with the development of our own legal profession, our own Bar, bearing in mind three factors. Firstly, the differences in our legal system and the systems in which the Queen's Counsels operate; secondly, for the foreseeable future, we may still need Queen's Counsels in the civil cases, particularly, commercial and banking cases; and, thirdly, the development and appointment of Senior Counsel in our local scene. Therefore, Dr Ker will note that, while we are making these amendments, we are not in a rush to completely stop Queen's Counsels even for criminal cases. So they are not barred from representing accused defendants in criminal cases. What we are doing is that, for criminal cases, for the reasons I have set out in my speech, there is a justification for adding the special additional criterion. He asked a specific question as to what is meant by "a person" in the amendment, ie, the court shall not admit a person. To understand that, one has to look at the totality of the entire provision of section 21 which deals with Queen's Counsel and if he reads it, he will note that it says, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may for the purpose of any one case where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty ... admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor ..." Then it spells out who this person is, and it is defined as "one who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel, does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia ... and has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case." So by "person", we are referring to one who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel. So that answers his question. I agree with him that it is important to develop sufficient numbers of people at our criminal Bar who have the competence, expertise and the ability who can stand out to Queen's Counsel and I have confidence that our local Bar will be able to produce such people as we develop. Prof. Walter Woon has raised a special kind of problem. It is two-fold in nature. One refers to the position of full-time members of the Faculty of Law who, as he explained, in order to have audience in court, may have either to be employed with a law firm or may have to take up practising certificate as a sole proprietor in order to enable him to appear in court. Let me say, first, that having previously been Dean of the Faculty and having myself strongly advocated that Law Faculty lecturers must have some interaction with the real world of practice, I am sympathetic to the underlying thrust of his remarks. I will discuss this further with the Attorney-General and the Law Society. But there are some implications which we really have to consider. My first reaction to what he said is that I do not think we can treat the special category of Law Faculty lecturers on exactly the same footing as the sole proprietors which would be the case for most of the situations of the Legal Profession Act. Because the sole proprietors in a normal case have to comply with the whole gamut of obligations and safeguards under the Act, including the compensation fund and various other safeguards, subject to disciplinary proceedings, and so on. In other words, the problem that he has identified is how to cater for a very small group of lawyers in the Law Faculty to enable them to continue doing what they have been doing and how do we ensure that these amendments which impinge on them can be taken care of. I will look into that. I also need to say that we have to examine whether any proposed new provisions should deal only with the Law Faculty in the NUS because I also had similar approaches been made to me by other academics who teach law in other institutions of higher learning and who may not be producing qualified persons for the legal profession but, nevertheless, they are teaching law. So it has quite a lot of ramifications. The other point he made was to give an example of people who may be qualified persons not practising law but might have had considerable experience in a non-practitioner related role. For example, he might have been an in-house lawyer or a CEO of a big company. So the question he posed was: if a lawyer who has worked as a CEO in a big company were to resign and join the legal practice, ought he be subject to such a restriction on sole proprietorship? I think an argument can be made both ways. I can imagine lawyers arguing that he may have been a CEO or, for that matter, even as a Minister for Law for many years, but that does not necessarily entitle him to be a sole proprietor immediately upon taking up legal practice. It does not follow that what one previously did in a non-practitioner role automatically confers on him all the accoutrements and qualifications needed for sole proprietorship. The arguments have to be weighed carefully and this is another matter which I will discuss with the Attorney-General and the Law Society. I will also look into the third point which he mentioned about section 34(h). Finally, Dr Lau Teik Soon has commented on the legal practice management course. His first question was: will the course be after the 3-year period or before? My understanding is that the legal practice management course can be taken by a lawyer only after he has completed the requirement of 3-year practice. However, he will be allowed to register one month before the completion of the 3-year period and complete the course within 12 months of the commencement of his practice as sole proprietor. I do not think that is too much of an imposition. I do not have all the details of the course, but he might wish to know that the course will be conducted for a period of five days and cover four subjects - professional management, professional responsibility, financial management and legal profession and practice. So it is a 5-day course. The Council will determine successful completion of the course by reference to the solicitor's attendance, record and, I am afraid to say, testing based on return of assignments set in performance and tutorials but these are questions of detail which will have to be spelt out in regulation by the Law Society. Here it is a question really as to whether there is an inconsistency on the one hand of not allowing a freshly admitted lawyer from setting up sole proprietorship and, on the other hand, allowing him to set up partnership with another lawyer who has had three years' experience. While we could have been stricter and disallowed it, I think there is no inconsistency in allowing a lawyer with less than three years' practice to enter into a partnership with another lawyer with more than three years' experience because the more experienced lawyer, in fact, can be a mentor to advise and guide the less experienced lawyer. It will also benefit the clients of the firm in that the senior lawyer could serve as a check against any possible misconduct or malpractice. The presence of a senior partner will also provide an avenue for consultation and advice in cases where doubts arise over the appropriate course of action that the new lawyer wants to take. Yes, there is no requirement for a lawyer of three years' standing to have also taken the practical course. To do so, I would have had to make a provision which has retrospective effect and we have decided that it is best that the provisions have only prospective effect. Finally, he wants an assurance that we will not move any more amendments. Let me assure him that when we move amendments to the Legal Profession Act, as with most other legislation, they are for good reasons. I cannot say that because we have moved these amendments, there will be no further restrictions or no further amendments. All these must be subject to reviewing the legislation and the implementation of these regulations and provisions over a period of time. Of course, we do not want to make unnecessary amendments, but we will always keep this under review and only, if necessary, we will move the amendments.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 1.50 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Institute of Education (IE) Act (Chapter 140 of the 1985 Revised Edition) as the IE is defunct and its functions have been taken over by the National Institute of Education (NIE), an institution established under the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Act. The IE Act was passed in 1970 to provide for the establishment of the Institute of Education as a teacher training institute, replacing the former Teacher Training College. The IE offered two pre-service programmes, namely, the Certificate-in-Education for non-graduate trainees and the Diploma-in-Education for graduate trainees. It also conducted in-service training for teachers. In 1984, the College of Physical Education (CPE) was set up as an autonomous college of IE to train specialist Physical Education teachers. In 1989, following a review of higher education and teacher education in Singapore, the Government decided to merge the IE and the CPE to form the National Institute of Education or the NIE, an institute under the Nanyang Technological University. This was a milestone in the development and upgrading of teacher training in Singapore. The linkage of NIE to NTU provides a broader base of studies within NTU. The Certificate-in-Education programme was upgraded to the Diploma-in-Education and the former Diploma-in-Education was upgraded to the Postgraduate Diploma-in-Education. In addition, NIE introduced two new degree programmes, namely, the Bachelor degree in Arts with Diploma-in-Education and the Bachelor degree in Science with Diploma-in-Education. On 1st July 1991, NIE took over all the functions, as well as assets and liabilities of IE. The NTU Act and its statutes provide the legislative framework for the regulation and management of NIE. The IE Act was, however, not repealed in 1991 as several outstanding matters relating to staff appointments and finance needed time to be resolved. As these matters have been resolved, the IE Act can now be repealed. Section 2 of the Bill seeks to repeal the IE Act. Section 3 provides that all assets, rights, interest, privileges, liabilities and obligations of the IE will be transferred to NTU. This is to deal with contingent claims, if any, for or against the IE. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the People's Association (PA) Act to enlarge its objects and powers and to provide protection from personal liability to grassroots leaders and staff of the People's Association. Establishment of the Community Development Councils Sir, as Singapore progresses economically, it must constantly be on guard against social stratification. We must take active measures to mitigate this should it happen. To preserve and maintain social harmony, there must be social cohesion between the successful and the less successful. The more able Singaporeans must have a sense of obligation to society and to help the less able. All Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, have a responsibility to help foster community bonding. Hence, the Government proposes to set up Community Development Councils (CDCs) to strengthen the social glue that holds our people together and foster community bonding. The CDCs will allow Singaporeans a greater say in the development and management of the social infrastructure within their community. The more successful Singaporeans, especially those who are not already serving in grassroots organisations, can be inducted to serve in the CDCs to care for and help the less successful. Through this process of self-help, more Singaporeans will be involved in a localised form of participative Government. We already have the Town Councils to look after the estate management. The CDCs will look after the social infrastructure. The CDC will: (a) have responsibility and funds to develop bonding among members of each local community; and (b) induct the more successful Singaporeans, especially those not presently involved in grassroots organisations, to serve, care for and help the less successful. A few CDCs will first be set up as a pilot scheme. Eventually, CDCs will be established to cover the whole country. Objects and Powers of the PA Sir, the Government proposes to establish the CDCs initially under the People's Association Act. However, the existing objects and powers of the PA specified in section 9 of the PA Act are not wide enough to cover all the activities of the CDCs. The proposed amendments will enlarge the functions of the PA Act to cover the activities of the CDCs. When formed under the PA Act, the CDCs will become committees of the PA. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 9(1) of this Act to provide for this. In time, as more experience is gained, a new legislation could be introduced for the CDCs after they have been in operation for some years and when their role expands. That was also how Town Councils were developed. The Ang Mo Kio Town Council, for example, was established about two years before the Town Councils Act was enacted in 1988. As a "pilot" Town Council, the Ang Mo Kio Town Council was managing and maintaining the common properties of the HDB estates in Ang Mo Kio, delegated by the HDB. Protection from Personal Liability Sir, in view of the enlarged functions of the PA, there is also a need to protect its grassroots leaders and staff from being personally liable while acting under the direction of the PA or its committees. Protection from personal liability is a standard provision in the Acts of statutory boards, including the Town Councils Act. The PA Act does not have this provision. Hence, clause 3 provides a new section 9A to protect grassroots leaders and staff of the PA from personal liability when they act in good faith under the direction of the PA Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association is formed with the objective of fostering community bonding and enhancing the social cohesiveness of the people. In order to achieve this objective, it must be done regardless of race, religious and political beliefs. However, nowadays, the community-based organisations under the People's Association such as the CCCs and RCs have become grassroots organisations of the People's Action Party. In the past, when there were no opposition parties in Parliament, the elected Members of Parliament were automatically appointed advisors to the grassroots organisations in their respective constituencies. However, since the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, Mr Jeyaretnam, was returned to Parliament, the arrangement was changed. A PAP Member of Parliament of another constituency was appointed advisor to the grassroots organisations there, and a second advisor was appointed to supervise grassroots organisation in an opposition constituency. As we all know, the second advisor would eventually become the PAP candidate in the next general election. Now the second advisors can work the ground in the constituency and gain political capital. On the other hand, the Opposition MP who was elected by the people to represent them in Parliament cannot make use of the facilities and resources of the community-based organisations. He is, in fact, excluded from these community-based organisations. This once again shows that the PAP Government does not respect the decision of the people. Are community-based organisations under the People's Association really formed for the purpose of enhancing the cohesiveness of the people? Or are they actually enhancing the cohesiveness of the PAP supporters? In order to remedy this, we should also amend the People's Association Act to give the following effect: that elected Members of Parliament of all the single constituencies and GRCs shall be consulted in all activities carried out by the People's Association in the constituencies, and the elected Members of Parliament shall be appointed advisors to the grassroots organisations therein, in order to achieve the objectives of the People's Association.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association (Amendment) Bill 1996 seeks to enhance the social cohesiveness of the people. In order to enhance social cohesiveness, the elected Member of Parliament should be allowed to participate in the grassroots organisations because he is the representative elected by the people. He has the support of the majority of the constituents. Logically, he should be automatically appointed advisor to the grassroots organisations in the constituency to lead and motivate the residents into participating in activities organised by these grassroots organisations. However, there is no such provision in this Amendment Bill. Accordingly, I propose that there should be a provision in the People's Association Act that the elected Member of Parliament for the constituency should automatically become the advisor to the grassroots organisations therein.

Sir, there is a glaring discrimination against the Opposition MPs. All Opposition MPs are not appointed advisors to the grassroots organisations whereas all PAP Members of Parliament are automatically appointed advisors to grassroots organisations. The Board of the People's Association in this respect is going against the wishes of the people. The constituents want their elected representatives to be their advisors in the grassroots organisations but the People's Association thinks otherwise. In fact, the PA has elevated a defeated PAP candidate at the polls to a higher status than the elected Opposition MP at Potong Pasir. The defeated PAP candidate is given all the facilities to win back the seat. He has been given special facilities such as a room in the void deck to hold meetings and to hold his meet-the-people sessions. That room is fully air-conditioned and fully equipped with computers and other clerical aids. On the other hand, the elected Opposition MP has to work from a table that is placed in the open void deck, no different from a fortune teller plying his trade on a five-foot way.

Another Singapore's first.

Such is the humiliation accorded to an elected Member of Parliament. But the people of Singapore are mature. They know what is going on and such shabby treatment of an Opposition MP shall be counter-productive. I support Mr Low's suggestion that the Act be amended to allow all elected Opposition MPs to be appointed as advisors to the grassroots organisations. It is not just right to appoint a defeated PAP candidate to be the advisor of grassroots organisations, such as in Potong Pasir, it is an incongruity which must be put right. At Potong Pasir, as an elected MP, in fact I have to make applications for CIPC funds to the Chairman of the CCC for which the defeated candidate is the advisor. How do you think the defeated candidate will advise the CCC? To give support to the Opposition's application? Naturally not. My Town Council's applications for CIPC funds have been rejected. I am not surprised at those rejections. How can one expect a defeated candidate, who is trying hard to unseat the incumbent Member of Parliament, to support that MP in his community projects for which he will gain credit, and to make his own chances of success to be elected more remote? If the Opposition Member of Parliament is not made an advisor to the grassroots organisations, the Opposition constituency shall be deprived of CIPC funds and other benefits and it shall be put in a most disadvantageous position. So I call upon the Minister to amend the Act.

Sir, it came as no surprise to me that the three Opposition MPs have raised the same point. I suppose they may have discussed among themselves. But this is not a new point. It is a question which has been raised on many occasions, ever since I was the Minister for Community Development. A question was raised by Mr Chiam about the role of grassroots organisations and the advisors and the role of the Opposition. And I have explained many times too that grassroots organisations and the PA serve the interest of the Government. The Government's objective is to ensure that its programmes are carried out, its policies are understood, facilities are open to the public, and to make sure that they come in and enjoy the facilities and at the same time to take part in discussions and feedback and various other activities. So, from time to time, the grassroots organisations carry out all these Government policies. I have also said in the past that I find it very difficult to believe that Opposition MPs will serve this role well, compared to the people that the Government will appoint. And, in this instance, we happen to appoint all our Members of Parliament to be the advisors of grassroots organisations and people whom we think can carry out Government policies to be their advisors. So, for the same reason now, I am telling the three Members here that we do not think that they can really perform the role that the Government envisages of the advisors of the grassroots organisations and therefore they will not be appointed as advisors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clarification. The Minister has just mentioned that the grassroots organisations serve the PAP Government's interest. That is what he has mentioned. Some hon. Members: Serve the Government.

So perhaps the grassroots organisations should be separated from the community organisations. The Amendment Bill says "the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the people of Singapore". If the grassroots organisation is going to be termed as a community organisation, and where a constituency is held by the Opposition, the people clearly voted for the Opposition, how do you propose to bond the people of Singapore? I would suggest that maybe it is more appropriate to say, "the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the PAP supporters of Singapore." What is the view of the Minister?

Sir, I mentioned the Government's programmes and policies. Of course, this is a PAP Government. There is no doubt about that. But Government's interest is to look after every Singaporean's interest. Therefore, social cohesion is one of the objectives and you must find the organisation that will serve this objective. There is nothing to stop the four Members of the Opposition from having their own committees to do the same thing. But as far as the organisations that the PA has, these are to serve the Government's interest and the Government's programmes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister saying that if the Opposition were to form a committee, it would be recognised as a community-based committee and thereby accorded the same status and privilege as those committees under the PA?

Sir, right now, the Opposition already have facilities to do that. They have access to town councils. They can do projects within the town councils. If you look at the Town Councils Act, it gives you enough leeway to do what you think is necessary for this purpose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was whether if such committee is formed by the Opposition, it will be recognised and accorded the same privilege as these committees under the PA. And I wish to remind the Minister that the Town Councils Act is going to be amended today as well which would make it difficult.

Sir, the People's Association Act does not provide for such committees to be formed outside the Act, as required by the Member for Hougang. The PA Act has its own committees and organisations. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Mr Low, may I remind you that the debate has ended and I have allowed you to seek clarification. But I will not allow you to continue with the questioning.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a clarification

All right. One last clarification.

I wish to clarify. How does the Minister propose to foster community bonding and promote community spirit when the Opposition is excluded from the community by the Act and by the actual appointment of advisor?

Sir, what he is saying is that the Opposition Member of Parliament is excluded. But by excluding the Opposition Member of Parliament from the grassroots organisations does not mean that these grassroots organisations cannot perform the role of fostering community spirit and social cohesion. There are other leaders and people whom we can find to do the job, and they are much better than the Opposition.

Further clarification, Sir. Does the Minister say that the people who are doing the community work should be politically neutral to serve the interest of the community or are they supposed to serve the PAP Government?

Sir, the Government does not question the political inclination of the grassroots leaders. It is up to them. In fact, they may support the PAP.

Sir, may I have a clarification from the Minister?, I suppose fostering of community bonding would mean the bonding of the different races - Malay, Chinese, Indians and others. And with regard to social cohesion, this would probably mean the cohesion of different class levels - working class and people who are not in the working class and of different professions. Can I have a clarification on this, please?

Fostering community spirit and social cohesion cover all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion.

What does the Minister understand by these two phrases? Can I have a clarification? What is community bonding and what is strengthening of social cohesion?

Order. It appears to me that the hon. Members are questioning the Minister when in effect the debate has ended. I would like to remind the Members that in seeking clarification, they should actually confine themselves to seeking clarification as defined under the Standing Orders. But it appears to me that they are putting new questions to the Minister under the guise of seeking clarification.

Sir, I was going to follow up with another question.

Mr Chiam, you should have asked these questions during the course of your speech. That is the point that I am trying to make to you.

Can I ask the Minister then, how does he intend to have community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion when he keeps out a representative who represents 70% of the constituents? How are you going to achieve your ends?

I think these points have been raised by the Minister in the course of his speech. Mr Wong, do you still wish to reply?

I think Mr Chiam did not understand my answer. I have already answered the question.

Sir, the Minister, by practice and the Act, is keeping out the elected representative of the constituency from grassroots activities and he represents 70% of the constituents. If 70% of the constituents are not represented in these grassroots organisations, how is he going to achieve this end of community bonding and social cohesion? That is my question.

Sir, I thought I have answered all these questions. He did not quite understand it. Let me repeat it one more time. These community organisations and grassroots organisations serve everyone in the constituency. It does not need the Opposition MP to be the advisor.

Sir, the leader that he is talking about only represents 30% of the constituents. How is he going to achieve the objectives?

Order. Mr Chiam, I do not think you are seeking clarification. I think you are repeating yourself. I will put an end to the debate now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a further clarification.

Yes.

Under clause 2(e), it says "the carrying out of such activities as appear to the Board to be advantageous towards, or necessary or convenient for, the furtherance of the objects ...". I would like the Minister to clarify what are "such activities" referred to in the Bill. Is an activity like pasar malam considered as an activity to further the Board's objects?

Order. Mr Low, you are not seeking clarification on the point raised by the Minister in the course of his speech. You are in fact introducing new material into the debate. I will disallow that.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I have asked the question just now. What do "such activities" refer to under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill? Is an activity like pasar malam considered as an activity to further the objects of the People's Association?

Sir, there are many kinds of activities that we cannot anticipate. That is why this clause is worded this way, ie, to carry out such activities as they further the objects of the Act. If pasar malam happens to help foster community bonding and gets the grassroots leaders to work together with the residents and if it provides them with an opportunity to get together, it will fall under the ambit of this Amendment Bill.

A further clarification, Sir. What would be the principle in considering activities which would deem to be fostering community bonding? Are there any criteria or standards to decide on such activities, or just any activity as you wish?

Sir, for example, if an organisation wants to have a gambling pasar malam, a session for gambling, that definitely will not be the kind of activity that we envisage. But if an activity that helps to bring people together, provides them with a place to go to and brings the people together so that they know each other better, that will be within the spirit of this Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill will amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act, which I will refer to as the EEI Act in short. The Bill introduces the new Development and Expansion Incentive and two tax changes to the Investment Allowance incentive. Two of these three tax changes were announced in the 1996 Budget Statement. The Bill will also make two technical amendments to the Investment Allowance incentive. These amendments shall take effect from the Year of Assessment 1997, and will therefore apply to income earned in 1996 I will now describe each of the proposed amendments in turn. Development and Expansion Incentive (DEI) The new Development and Expansion Incentive, or DEI in short, was announced in the 1996 Budget Statement. It replaces the Post-Pioneer Incentive which will no longer be awarded. The DEI complements the Pioneer Incentive in encouraging companies engaged in high value-added manufacturing or services activities to invest, expand and upgrade in Singapore. To explain how the DEI works, let me firstly briefly touch on the Pioneer and Post-Pioneer Incentives. The Pioneer Incentive is awarded to investment projects that bring substantial economic benefits to Singapore. These are typically high value-added, technology and capital intensive manufacturing investments. Income of approved Pioneer projects is exempt from tax for up to 10 years. At the end of their Pioneer status, companies that upgrade or expand their activities further may apply for the Post-Pioneer Incentive. Income derived from the Post-Pioneer projects is taxed at a concessionary rate of no lower than 10% for up to 10 years. Like the Post-Pioneer Incentive, the DEI confers a concessionary tax rate of no less than 10%, but for a maximum incentive period of up to 20 years. The DEI fulfils a need. Currently, the Pioneer Incentive is awarded only to the most desirable projects and the Post-Pioneer Incentive can only be given to Pioneer companies. With DEI, Pioneer and Post-Pioneer companies can be induced to further expand or upgrade their activities in Singapore at the end of their incentive period. The DEI can also be awarded for investments that have not enjoyed Pioneer status, but nevertheless bring strong economic benefits to Singapore. Singapore faces strong competition from both developed and developing countries for highly-desirable, high value-added manufacturing and services investment projects. The DEI will help ensure that Singapore remains an attractive location for these projects. Clause 2 of the Bill introduces the DEI. Tax changes to Investment Allowance Incentive The next two tax changes are to the Investment Allowance Incentive, or IA in short. Under this incentive, up to 50% of approved fixed capital expenditure may be deducted against the company's taxable income. The first of the two tax changes raises the IA cap from 50% to 100% of fixed capital expenditure. The enhancement to the IA will make it more attractive to companies making sizeable capital investments in projects with long gestation periods. Where the company has insufficient profits in the year to fully set off the IA, the unutilised IA can be carried forward and set off against future profits. In contrast, the tax relief period for the Pioneer Incentive commences upon production, even if the company makes losses during the initial years. IA at 100% will typically be for projects that would also qualify for Pioneer Incentive, but may find the Pioneer Incentive less attractive because of the project's long gestation period. The second tax change to the IA allows us to more effectively encourage companies to reduce the consumption of water. Presently, IA is awarded to help defray the high capital expenditure on water recycling plants or other means of water conservation. However, for companies already enjoying concessionary tax rates or tax exemption, IA is not sufficient as an inducement to install such equipment. The tax change will allow IA for equipment used to reduce water consumption to be set off against the company's other income streams taxed at the normal rate. This enables the company to derive maximum benefit from the IA for water conservation or recycling. Clauses 5 and 6b relate to these amendments. Technical amendments I will now move on to the technical amendments to the Investment Allowance Incentive. The first technical amendment clarifies that the IA may not be awarded to a project that derives income which already enjoys a concessionary tax rate. The amendment makes explicit the tax practice of not double-incentivising a company for the same investment project. However, an exception to this principle is made for reducing water consumption as I have explained earlier. The second technical amendment widens the scope of water conservation projects allowed. The IA is presently given for projects that reduce the consumption of potable water. The word "potable" is to be deleted so that the IA can be used to encourage the conservation of both potable and industrial water. Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the EEI Act will improve our tax incentives to better attract investments into Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Goh Chee Wee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Objective This Bill seeks to amend the Town Councils' Act in several aspects. Apart from clarifying and expanding on some existing sections, the Bill also introduces a new section relating to the transfer of Town Councils' accumulated surpluses to their sinking funds at every General Election or By-election. I shall explain the rationale for the proposed transfer of surpluses before proceeding to explain the other amendments proposed in the Bill. Rationale for Transfer of Surpluses Mr Speaker, Sir, Town Councils (TCs) have to carry out both routine and cyclical maintenance works so that the properties within the Towns are always in good condition. An example of routine maintenance works is the daily cleaning and upkeep of the Town. Examples of cyclical maintenance works are the repainting of buildings, the renewal and replacement of roofs, water tanks, pumps and electrical supply system and lifts, and major repairs and maintenance of common property in the Town. My Ministry has stipulated the appropriate intervals for various cyclical maintenance works. For example, booster pumps and hoisting ropes or sheaves of lifts should be replaced at 7-year intervals. Water pumps should be replaced once in every 12 years, re-roofing every 14 years and re-wiring every 20 years. The lifts should be totally overhauled or replaced every 28 years. Based on these guidelines, many Town Councils will need to carry out major cyclical maintenance works which require large expenditure in the next few years. Town Councils use their sinking funds to finance the cyclical maintenance works. When Town Councils were established progressively since 1989, the Government gave Town Councils a one-time cyclical maintenance grant to build up their sinking funds. The total amount of cyclical maintenance grant given to all Town Councils was $264 million. This sum covered the cyclical maintenance works for the first seven years of the Town Councils' operation. After giving Town Councils this headstart, Town Councils are now on their own. My Ministry observed that the costs for cyclical works increased by an average of 5% per year from 1991 to 1994. However, Town Councils' Service and Conservancy charges increased by an average of only 3% per year between 1989 (when the Town Councils were first established) and 1995. The contribution rate therefore lags behind the increase in maintenance costs. My Ministry has conducted a study on the sufficiency of Town Councils' sinking funds to meet the cyclical maintenance works in the future. The study shows that many Town Councils, with their present sinking fund balances, would not have enough funds for the cyclical maintenance works. Without adequate sinking funds, the residents would have to fork out cash each time their Town Councils carry out major cyclical maintenance works. Therefore, Town Councils have to increase their sinking fund contributions now to increase their self-sufficiency. We have to find additional ways to build up their sinking funds. Town Councils are required by law to set aside a minimum proportion of the monthly Service and Conservancy charges to their sinking funds. The proportion ranges from 30% to 40%, depending on the type of property. To boost the balance in their sinking funds, Town Councils should set aside a higher proportion of monthly Service and Conservancy charges over and above the minimum requirement. However, many Town Councils are currently running at a deficit as their Service and Conservancy income could barely match their operating expenditures. Town Council operations are also financed by annual grants-in-aid given by the Government. It is only with such operating grants that Town Councils achieve budget surpluses. So it is unlikely that Town Councils would voluntarily increase the proportion of their Service and Conservancy charges to be set aside in their sinking fund. The surpluses accumulated by the Town Councils so far are primarily attributed to the Government's substantial annual grants-in-aid. In the Financial Year 1995/1996 alone, the grants given to all Town Councils amounted to $92 million. Government takes a keen interest in ensuring that the Town Councils' surpluses are put to worthy uses to maintain or enhance the value of the properties under their management. This is also in the long-term interests of the residents in the Town. Presently, Town Councils are at liberty to deploy the surpluses that they have accumulated over the years. They can safeguard their surpluses by transferring them to the sinking fund for approved uses. They could also use the surpluses to carry out improvement works in the Town. The surpluses may also be used by Town Councils to subsidise the Service and Conservancy charges. Of the three measures, the first is the most prudent way of managing Town Councils' surpluses. The last measure would certainly appeal to the residents and some Town Councils may be tempted to adopt it. However, we know that this measure would compound the problem because the residents' contributions are already lagging behind the increase in maintenance costs. The Government will not bail out any Town Council that runs into deficit. Ultimately, the residents are the ones who will suffer because they have to face the consequences of inadequate sinking funds. The Government wants to help the Town Councils to build up their sinking fund as well as to avoid the need for residents to pay a lump sum contribution for the cyclical maintenance works. Therefore, my Ministry proposes to transfer Town Councils' surpluses to the sinking fund to safeguard them for approved uses. This is similar to locking up past budget surpluses at every change of Government so that our future will be more secure. Clause 9 of the Bill proposes that a Town Council transfer to its sinking fund, all or part of its surpluses as shown in its audited balance sheet for the last completed financial year before the issue of a Writ of Election. It ensures that Town Councils' surpluses are safeguarded whether the Member of Parliament running the Town Council is or is not re-elected at a general election or by-election. The full amount of the surpluses is transferred to the Town Council's sinking fund if the MP is elected from another political party. If the MP is re-elected from the same political party, only 80% of the Town Council's surpluses will be transferred to its sinking fund. The successor Town Council can retain 20% of the surpluses for running its operations or carrying out town improvements. A new MP from another political party should not ride on the sound financial management of the Town Council under the guidance of the previous MP from a different political party and use the surpluses to carry out the improvement works. The new MP should build up his own surpluses to finance his own improvement projects. He has to prove that he is capable of managing the funds to the residents who elected him into office. The provision in this Bill will apply uniformly to all political parties. The proposed transfer of Town Councils' surpluses to their sinking funds would, in fact, depoliticise the use of Town Councils' surpluses. Rather than letting Town Councils use the surpluses for short-term benefits to win political favour, the surpluses are safeguarded for use on major but necessary cyclical works for the long-term benefit of the residents. The Government would like to make clear its stand that it will not bail out any Town Council, regardless of the political party which the MP belongs to, if it should run into financial deficit. Amendments to existing sections Sir, I shall go through the other amendments in the Bill. Clause 2 seeks to redefine "commercial property" and "residential property" so that Town Councils can perform specific functions with regard to each type of property. Clause 3 amends section 3 to deal with post-election arrangements. First, Members of Parliament will have eight days after a general election to agree to have their constituencies declared as a Town, failing which each constituency will itself form a Town. Second, a Town Council, part of whose Town area now forms another Town, will have to manage and maintain the common property in that area without drawing on the surpluses until the new Town Council is formed for that area. Clause 4 amends section 8 to clarify that the number of appointed members of a Town Council shall be determined according to the number of Members of Parliament required to represent the constituencies comprised in that Town. Clause 5 amends section 12 to clarify the appointments of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Town Council. Clause 6 amends section 19 to clarify certain powers of Town Councils. These powers relate to the provision and maintenance of facilities only on common property within the Town, the imposition of charges for such use of the common property, the management of food centres and markets of the Housing and Development Board and the undertaking of agency works on behalf of public authorities or community based associations within the Town. Clause 7 amends section 24 to empower Town Councils to make their own by-laws subject to the power of the Minister for National Development to disapprove any of them within a one-month period after the by-laws were gazetted. The clause also increases the maximum fine for breach of any by-law from $1,000 to $5,000. Clause 8 amends section 33 to enable a Town Council to transfer moneys from the funds in the Town Council Fund relating to a privatised HDB estate to the management corporation for that estate. Clause 10 amends section 43 to allow the employees and agents of a Town Council to enter any flat to estimate the value of any movable property so that it may seize and sell to recover outstanding Service and Conservancy charges. Clause 11 amends section 43E to raise the maximum fine that a Town Council may offer in compounding an offence from $400 to $1,000. Clause 12 amends section 45 to provide that penalties for late payment of Service and Conservancy charges and other fees may be recovered by a Town Council in a Small Claims Tribunal as if the penalties are moneys payable under a contract for the provision of services. Conclusion In summary, the amendment on transfer of Town Councils' surpluses to their sinking funds works on the same principle as the locking up of the country's past budget surpluses at every change of Government. It would enable Town Councils' surpluses to be safeguarded for approved uses. It also protects the residents so that they need not make big lump-sum contributions for cyclical maintenance works. This is another step to ensure a more secure future. The other amendments proposed in the Bill are technical amendments to clarify and expand on some existing sections in the Town Councils Act. They would allow Town Councils to perform their functions more efficiently and effectively. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.42 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly in two areas. The first one is this Amendment Bill enables the Town Council to carry out agency work on land not belonging to the Town Council. I think this will help the Town Councils greatly to improve their services to residents of HDB estates. There are instances in which minor works such as grass-cutting, paving of muddy footpaths and even repair of drain covers and gratings, have to be carried out so as not to present a hazard to residents. I think this could not be done expeditiously under the present Act. The second area I welcome is the proposed change in which 100% of the accumulated operating surplus of a Town Council will be transferred into the sinking fund after a general election if the elected MP is from a different political party. This change is equitable as it applies to both ruling party and opposition controlled Town Councils. The most important outcome of this mandatory move is that it will prevent political opportunists from making election promises to win votes. The financial performance of every Town Council is publicly available. May I have your permission to distribute a table of some eight Town Councils showing the level of surpluses as at the fiscal year 1994/95. [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.] Sir, on the high end, we see that Sembawang Town Council has some $14.8 million of surplus funds and Cheng San has $16.5 million. On the extreme, Potong Pasir, which is a single constituency, has $500,000. Therefore, prudent Town Councils have large surpluses and hence vulnerable during an election as all kinds of promises, including service and conservancy charges rebates, can be easily made. Sir, what I fail to understand from the Amendment Bill is that 80% of the surpluses will still have to be transferred to the sinking fund should the elected MP come from the same party as the incumbent. I think, Sir, this is wholly unnecessary and I will like the Minister to give a fuller explanation, especially when certain commitments for expenditure have already been made by the incumbent just before an election. Sir, another question I will like the Minister to clarify is that under clause 3(a), the declaration of a "Town" is mentioned as a result of a general election. But does this present Bill cover the effects of a by-election? Sir, although I support the changes in the Amendment Bill, I feel that it has not gone far enough. As Town Council is becoming an important part of our national landscape, the elected MPs must be made accountable for its performance. This should not stop at cleaning and maintenance and development projects. It must also encompass how Town Council funds are being managed. Hence, the Act should be further amended to remove controls over the management and investment of Town Council funds. In this way, Singaporeans will realise that an elected MP can make an even greater difference to their lives. We must all understand that the mere casting of a vote can have national as well as local significance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Amendment Bill. Sir, the amendments to section 19(2) of the Town Councils Act afford flexibility for Town Councils to cooperate and work with other authorities to provide better services to residents, thereby optimising efficiency and minimising cost. Work duplication has sometimes caused inconvenience to residents. Thus, with better coordination, grass-cutting, for example, by the Parks and Recreation Department could be done once so that residents would not have to bear with the noise and perhaps be hit by flying stones twice. The new section 33A comes timely. It again shows the Government's foresight to ensure that money collected from residents will not be squandered by persons who happen to inherit the money. This Government once again shows its concern and commitment that residents' hard-earned money will be protected and will only be used for the benefit of residents. Looking back in time, residents will be happy that there will always be funds available to maintain their homes and amenities even if the economy were to really slow down. Sir, it is also a challenge to the incoming Town Councillors to ensure that they will do just as well, if not better, than their predecessors or themselves in the last term. Without this luxury of inheriting accumulated surpluses, any mismanagement of funds will become immediately apparent to residents, like when a Town Council continually runs into cash-flow problems and is unable to pay its suppliers on time. It will be most absurd for anyone to suggest that this amendment is political because the challenge to perform will come afresh after each election and will apply to all without exception. It removes the cushioning and the spillover effect if accumulated surpluses are available and ensures accountability by each MP or group of MPs in charge of the Town Council. Sir, whilst I support the principle behind the Amendment Bill and notwithstanding what I have said, I have two suggestions for the Minister. These two suggestions relate to the new section 33A of the Act which is the use of surplus funds. While it is acknowledged that this amendment in section 33A of the Bill serves a laudable purpose of safeguarding residents' money, will it not be more productive and prudent for the use of this surplus money to be channelled to some kind of safe investments like the purchase of premises for the Town Council's own office? Most Town Councils currently rent offices from the HDB. Perhaps, part of this surplus fund could be used by the Town Council to purchase premises for its own use. The Government can still have control here by stipulating guidelines on the use of these surpluses on investments in properties. Sir, the other suggestion I have is that most Town Councils are able to implement a lot of improvement works, for example, construction of walkways, linkways, landscaping, residents' corner, study corner and the lot, through the use of operating surpluses accumulated over the years and, of course, with the help of CIPC. Because of this, most Town Councils, particularly Eunos/Pasir Ris Town Council, have developed a 5-year development plan to provide additional improvement facilities that will further enhance the ambience and environment of the town. Sir, with this amendment, 80% of these accumulated surpluses go to the sinking fund and this will affect the implementation of the ongoing 5-year development plan as less funds will be available to the Town Council. May I therefore ask the Minister if he will make an exception to a Town Council which has basically the same team of MPs from the same political party running the Town Council after the next general election, that is, allowing them to retain 100% of the accumulated surpluses to ensure continuity in the implementation of the 5-year development plan. Sir, I offer these suggestions to the Minister for his comments.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another example of the PAP Government disregarding the wishes of the people. When the constituents vote in a Member of Parliament, they are also giving him the mandate to run the Town Council. Yet, the PAP Government is saying that the elected MP cannot be trusted. We must lock up the money! There are three purposes to this Amendment Bill. First, it is to stop the Town Council run by an Opposition MP from making use of the accumulated surpluses to develop the town or to improve its facilities. The Bill provides that at least 80% of the accumulated surpluses must be transferred to the sinking fund after each election. This Amendment Bill, of course, will not have much effect on the PAP Town Councils because the PAP Town Councils can obtain 80% to 85% additional subsidy through the CIPC from the Ministry of National Development to improve the facilities in the town. On the contrary, the Town Councils run by the Opposition parties are unable to obtain additional subsidies from the Ministry of National Development. They will also not be able to retain the total accumulated surpluses, even if the MP is re-elected, to improve and provide facilities such as covered walkways, recreational facilities, illuminated signboards, etc. When Town Councils were first established, the PAP threatened voters in the 1988 General Election that if the voters were to cast their votes for the opposition and the elected opposition candidate was unable to manage the Town Council, there would be nobody to clear their garbage, and maintenance of flats would be a problem. But eight years later when the PAP discovered that the Opposition parties were able to manage the Town Councils and to make good use of the available resources, it makes use of the power vested in the Government to provide more funds to the Town Councils run by the PAP, to create the wrong impression that the PAP MPs are managing their Town Councils better than the Opposition MPs. Now it is going one step further by making it mandatory for the accumulated surpluses to be transferred to the sinking fund so as to restrain the Town Councils run by the Opposition parties, in order to attain the political objectives of the People's Action Party. Secondly, the Amendment Bill restrains the power of the Town Councils, causing the Town Councils to take orders from the HDB when they want to enhance the facilities within the town. This Amendment Bill takes away the rights given to the Town Councils as provided for under section 19(a), (c) and (d) of the original Act. With this amendment, prior approval of the HDB shall be required when the Town Council wants to carry out any improvement to their facilities. I recall that at the time when the PAP Government wanted to set up the Town Councils, the then Prime Minister said in the 1988 mass rally that the duty of the HDB was to build flats, and not to manage or to control the local government. But this Amendment Bill has put the Town Councils under the control of the HDB. Does it mean that with a change of the Prime Minister, the duties of HDB are also changed? Thirdly, this Amendment Bill makes it impossible for the Town Councils to manage the towns effectively. For example, it provides that the Town Councils must provide, free of charge, facilities to agents appointed by the HDB and the Minister can prescribe that any person or community-based organisation can make use of common property under the management of the Town Council without having to pay any fees or charges In the beginning, the Government said that the concept of Town Councils was to allow the people to have a say in managing their own housing estates. But now, with this Amendment Bill, the system of Town Council will eventually become an effective tool for the PAP to use against the Opposition, and the Town Councils will be reduced to slaves of the Housing and Development Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mr Chew Heng Ching for their support of the Amendment Bill. Let me first reiterate what I said about the proposal to transfer the accumulated surpluses to the sinking fund. I do not want to conjure the picture of impending crisis in the sinking fund. But my Ministry has done a cash-flow analysis for the next five years, ie, the commitment that is needed by the Town Councils to do what is necessary for cyclical works and there will be a shortfall in the sinking funds. So we need to find some ways to top up the sinking funds. At present, many Town Councils enjoy large accumulated surpluses primarily because of the grants being given by the Government to the operating funds. So the best way to top up the sinking fund is to transfer these surpluses to the sinking fund. The other way is of course to impose a higher percentage of S&C charges into the sinking fund. We raised this to between 30% and 40% in 1993. We can always raise this further but I think that would limit the flexibility of the Town Councils even further. So the whole idea of transferring the surpluses to the sinking fund is not political in nature. It is sound, prudent financial management. Because when the crunch comes and the Town Councils have to change the lifts or undertake major repairs and the sinking fund is not sufficient, the Government will not come in to bail out the Town Councils. The Town Councils will have to levy a one-time charge on the residents and that is something which I am sure all of us, as MPs, want to avoid. So this is a prudent change. Why transfer 80% to the sinking fund if it is the same party, and not 100%? We recognise that if the MP from the same political party is re-elected, that political party should have some credit for its work done in the previous term. Therefore, we propose that 80% should be locked up and 20% should be carried over to the next term. In a typical 5-year term, 20% is equivalent to almost one year's surplus. So that gives the MP of the same political party a good start, whether it is the ruling party or the Opposition party. It gives him a reasonable start. In the new term, he gets 20% of his previous surpluses, which is one year's worth of surplus. Also, the amendment only locks up the accumulated surpluses as of the fiscal year before the writ of election. For example, if an election is called between now and April, ie, before the next fiscal year, in fact, he will be enjoying the surpluses of this current year plus 20% of his accumulated surpluses, which is one more year's worth of surpluses. So if he is re-elected from the same party, he goes into the next term with two years' worth of accumulated surpluses. I think that is enough to start him off on any improvement projects for his town. I would also like to assure Members here that when we finalise the regulations for this amendment, we will recognise contractual obligations of each town for the various improvement projects that the town has embarked upon at the time the Act comes into effect. I am sure many of you have medium term plans of improving the towns and some of you have entered into contracts on some of these improvement projects. We will recognise these commitments and these will be taken out from the surpluses that have been locked up. So this will be implemented reasonably so that every Town Council will continue to be able to do the improvement projects that they have undertaken. When he goes into the next term, he will still have a reasonable start to do the various projects he wants in his town. But the primary objective of safeguarding as much of the accumulated surpluses in the sinking fund must be maintained. The commitments to cyclical works will be very heavy in the years to come and we want to set aside the funds for it In response to Mr Chew Heng Ching, I will say that although the Ministry of National Development encourages every town to have a 5-year improvement programme so that we can work closely together to dovetail the development projects in the town, the priority for the Town Council remains the cyclical works and the sinking funds. Only when enough funds have been put aside in the sinking fund should we then undertake the improvement projects. So I think all of you should strive for the same priorities by making sure that sinking funds are catered for first so that our future requirements for cyclical works are met, and whatever is in surplus of that, we can undertake improvement projects. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked about clause 3(a) and whether that would apply to a by-election. Clause 3(a) is intended as an addition to the existing sections in the principal Act whereby the Minister has the powers to allow recomposition of the Town Councils at any time, as we did when Nee Soon South decided to join up with Ang Mo Kio Town Council. So the Act already allows the Minister to recompose the Town Council and therefore whether it is in a by-election or any time during the term there is flexibility for us to reconstitute the Town. So the amendment here is to make a special provision for a general election. We would like the elected Members to constitute themselves in a Town Council within eight days so that we minimise the period in which parts of the estates are run by the previous Town Council. I agree entirely with Mr Chng Hee Kok that over time the sinking fund will affect the resale value of HDB flats. I hope Singaporeans will become more sophisticated when they do a resale transaction and they not only look at the improvements within their flat and the estate around the flat, but they should also call for the annual report of the Town Councils to find out how much is in the surplus and how much is in the sinking fund. This is because if the sinking fund in the Town Council is not sufficient, when the time comes, you have to cough up the one-time contribution. So I agree with him entirely that the balances in the sinking fund would affect the resale value when Singaporeans become more sophisticated in their transactions. Mr Low Thia Khiang made three points and argued that this amendment ignores the voters' view to give the MP the mandate to run the Town Council. This is not true. The Town Councils would still be run by the elected MPs in the way that they deem fit for the benefit of their residents. What we would like to do is to make sure that we do a medium term projection and make sure that every Town Council has enough sinking fund balances to pay for impending cyclical maintenance works. Beyond that, you can run your Town Council, you can do improvement projects and, as I have explained earlier, there is enough funds for you to do so. The Act will be implemented for both the ruling party and the opposition party. If anything else, more money would be locked up from the ruling party. If you look at the annual reports of the various Town Councils, the Town Councils run by the PAP MPs have accumulated significant surpluses, many of them ranging beyond $15 million and we are locking this up and putting it aside in the sinking fund. The whole purpose is, in fact, to depoliticise some aspects of the Town Council operations. As Mr Chng Hee Kok pointed out, by locking this up, it would prevent candidates from offering all kinds of promises on the basis of the past surpluses. So it would not be possible, for example, in the run-up to the general election, for candidates from any party, to say, "Look, this XYZ Town Council has $15 million accumulated surpluses. If I am elected, I would do this, that or the other." If he is elected, he would have to demonstrate that he can do this, that or the other on his own merit, not on the $15 million accumulated by the previous management. So this will depoliticise the process and do away with empty promises. Mr Low Thia Khiang asks why improvements to facilities need HDB's permission. This is a long standing principle. HDB is the landlord of HDB estates and any changes to the estate will require the landlord's endorsement. HDB does this fairly quickly. As long as it is within the prerogative of the Town Councils, you can be assured of the cooperation of HDB. The other point that Mr Low made is: why is it necessary that some of the activities that the Town Council carries out no charges should be levied on HDB or agents appointed by HDB. These are some of the teething problems that we have in the past where HDB, as the landlord and developer, wants to go back to the town and undertake improvement projects. So we want to make it clear that the Town Councils have no authority to levy charges on HDB because the Town Councils are only managing the common property. They do not own the common property. The common property remains the property of HDB.

Clarification, Sir. The Minister mentioned that there was a study done on the sinking fund projection. I want to know whether the Minister will agree to release the study to the public or to the Town Council concerned. We would like to look at it in detail. In his reply, the Minister also mentioned that there is nothing different in the sense that Town Councils need to seek approval from the HDB for things that they do. But I wish to refer to the Act. Section 19(1)(a) says "establish and maintain places and facilities within the Town" whereas the amendment says "with the prior written consent of the Board establish and maintain places and facilities". This makes a lot of difference in terms of the power of the Town Council and the right to establish and maintain places and facilities. The Minister also assures that the HDB would be cooperative. I am not very sure of that. I would like to know whether the HDB contractor would be considered as its agent. If it is, and the Town Council is not allowed to collect any payment or if the HDB were to exempt the contractor from payment to the Town Council, would it be fair to the Town Council if the contractor who occupies the common area uses water and electricity from the Town Council or even sometimes damages the common property, and the Town Council has to foot the bill? Is it fair to the Town Council by not allowing it to levy any charges or the HDB just exempts these contractors if they are its agents? The Bill also says that the Minister may xempt certain organisations from paying charges. What are these organisations that the Minister considers fit to be exempted and on what principle would these organisations be exempted from paying charges?

Some of the amendments are clearly politically motivated.

Mr Ling, are you rising to make a speech or are you seeking a clarification?

I would want to speak on the amendment.

The debate has, in fact, been over already. You should have risen earlier. The Minister has already given his reply.

I thought I could ---

But you were in the House.

Yes, you moved on so fast and you asked the Minister to reply. In fact, I signalled that I wanted to speak.

I did not see you.

I wanted to speak.

I am sorry. The debate has ended. You could have stood up. Do you want to seek any clarification?

Yes.

All right, I will allow you to seek clarification, but not to make a speech. Get to the points immediately.

I want to seek clarification in respect of clause 6 of the Bill. The amendment has now required the written consent of the Town Council in respect of improvement to existing facilities. I am wondering why there is the necessity to have this amendment. The second point is, why is there the necessity to have written consent from the HDB? The third matter is, from my past experience in running a Town Council, when we apply for something, invariably there is delay. For example, when we applied to have a wishing well in a piece of vacant land in our Town Council, it was delayed for a long time and finally the answer came, "Permission is not granted because it is going to cause traffic jam". A wishing well can cause traffic jam! That was the answer from the HDB. Another example: we applied to construct a covered walkway. Similarly, the reply was, "We give you in principle approval." There has been no reply until now. Another clarification that I would like to seek is in respect of exemption of charges for the use of Town Council land by the Board's agent or any agent or any civic body, which is all-embracing. As it is now, we have the State land there. In other words, the RCs and the CCs could mean the State land now. It appears that with this amendment, they could also make use of the Town Council land. The responsibility of running and maintaining the Town Council land is on the shoulder of the Town Council and the facilities would have to be extended to the agents of the HDB. It has such a wide coverage as to who are agents of the HDB. Could they ultimately lease out to other people to run the whole place and they are exempted from paying the Town Council any charges? After that, the Town Council has to keep the whole place clean. Is this fair?

Order. On behalf of hon. Members, I welcome Hon. Members from the Botswana Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who are present in our Gallery. [Applause].

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang asked whether my Ministry will release the study of cyclical works. In fact, I would encourage every Town Council to do this study on their own. They would know what they are required to do to undertake the cyclical works over the next five and 10 years. I would urge Members to do a cash flow analysis of their sinking fund situation over the next five to 10 years. I am sure some Members have done so and some Members must have realised that they need to build up their sinking funds to a better level to be able to meet the increasing cost of cyclical maintenance in the future. The second point he asked was: why is it necessary to seek the approval of HDB to maintain or establish facilities on the common property. This is a similar point that Mr Ling How Doong raised. We had this debate some time in the past. The amendment is to establish the fact that the common property in the HDB estates belongs to HDB, the landlord. The Town Councils were established to maintain the common property. The Town Councils do not own the common property and therefore the amendment is to establish in no uncertain terms the relationship between a Town Council and HDB. You will need the written permission of HDB as the landlord to maintain or establish new facilities within the estate on the common property. Some Members raised examples of some improvements or some changes which they wanted to do but which did not get the expeditious reply from HDB. I will be happy if they send me the details and I will get HDB to explain the time taken. Mr Ling, for example, wanted to know why the wishing well took so long. Perhaps if he has his wishing well, it will come faster. But covered walkway is a standard requirement and I am surprised to hear that he faced difficulties. I am sure Mr Chiam - he is not here - has put up many covered walkways in Potong Pasir and I do not believe he faced any difficulties getting permission. I do not believe Mr Low Thia Khiang has put up many covered walkways. So he also does not face great difficulties. Mr Low asked which agent will HDB exempt and whether a HDB contractor will be deemed as a HDB agent. Let me assure the Member that we will exercise these powers judiciously. The amendment is meant for HDB when HDB goes in to upgrade the estate, for example. We need to clarify the relationship about HDB going back into the town, ie, the common property, to do the space-adding item. HDB contractor is doing so. We do not want the Town Council to say, "Look. You are now coming into the common property. We impose $1,000 per day for you to do works on the common property." So the amendment is to establish the relationship. It is not intended to impose additional burden on the Town Councils.

Further clarification, Sir. I have asked what are the organisations that the Minister would exempt to be charged by the TC, and I think the Minister has not answered. The Minister in his clarification has said that some Town Councils have done their own studies and he encourages Town Councils to do their own studies on sinking fund. My point was this. Based on the study on sinking fund, I believe the Minister said that we do not have enough sinking fund in the future and therefore 80% of the accumulated surplus should be transferred to the sinking fund. I would like to know what is the basis of the studies. I would appreciate it if he could release the studies so that I can study and see how they arrived at the figure of 80%. Because we did some similar studies, not in detail of course, but I do not think that we face a similar problem, based on the current situation of Hougang Town Council

Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the other agents that HDB will exempt will be, for example, Telecom when they come in to relay some of the wires on the common property. I know some Town Councils also have this difficulty where Telecom wants to relay the wires in the wet market or cooked food centres. So for such statutory bodies, we will designate them as agents in improving the common facilities and to get this job done quickly, to avoid all this bureaucratic wrangling, we will exempt them from charges by the Town Council. Mr Low asked whether we will release the studies of the cyclical works. Again, I will leave it to every Town Council to do so and to publish these studies to its own residents. For example, in Potong Pasir, over the next five years, for example, they will need to incur something like $4.8 million in their cyclical maintenance works. If you look at Potong Pasir, I think their accumulated surplus is about $300,000-plus and their sinking fund is much less than the $4.8 million. But these are studies which we do ourselves. I will leave it to Mr Chiam to do his own study, if he is re-elected for the next five years, and to convince his own residents whether or not his sinking fund, and even by locking up his accumulated surplus, would be sufficient to fund the future projects in Potong Pasir. This is for him to justify to his own residents.

Further clarification, Sir. My question was: what was the basis, based on the study, to come to the conclusion that at least 80% will be transferred to the sinking fund? Please do not quote me individual examples. Because we are talking about the Amendment Bill here and you are making 80% transfer across-the-board. The Minister talked about exemption. In his answer, he said TAS is a public authority. I have no problem with that. But in the Bill, it mentions about public authority and any community-based organisations. So what are the community-based organisations or organisations that he will exempt?

Some of these organisations are statutory bodies but with privatisation, for example, TAS has become Singapore Telecom; PUB has become Singapore Power. Community-based organisations refer to CDAC, Mendaki and SINDA. They may require some improvements and we do not want this fighting over levying of charges. The proposal in the amendment is to lock up 100% of the surpluses in the sinking fund. The reason why we have the 80% is that we recognise that MPs do deserve credit for building up the surpluses and when they start off the new term, they should enjoy part of these surpluses. That is why we allow a 20% to be carried over. I would have preferred locking up everything, 100%. But discussing with my colleagues here, they put up a very strong case that if the same party continues a second term, surely they must get some credit for use of the old surpluses, and that is why in this amendment, we propose 20% to be carried over and, as I have explained earlier, 20% in the normal term of the Government will be equivalent almost to the surpluses of one year. So that is enough to start you off. That is the explanation for the 80%.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

3.52 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House (a) adopts the Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals, contained in Parl. 5 of 1996, and endorses the Committee's findings that (1) the figures for the fees charged by polyclinics and private GPs and the average bill sizes in private and public cospitals, which the Minister for Health provided to Parliament on 15 March 1996, were correct; (2) the subsidy levels for services provided by polyclinics and public hospitals, as provided by the Ministry of Health,were also correct; and (3) Mr Ling How Doong and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had not been able to provide any objective data to substantiate their claim that "health care costs are hardly subsidised at all"; and (b) regrets the attempt by Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP to mislead Parliament and members of the public about Government subsidy of health care. Today's debate comes at the end of a long but necessary journey which began when the SDP published an article in the New Democrat 1996 Issue No. 1 entitled "The Truth about Health Care Costs". The article claimed that "health care costs are hardly subsidised at all". Mr Ling How Doong, the Chairman of the SDP, repeated the allegations in this House on 11th March 1996 during the Budget debate. As the Minister for Health, I understand and share the public concern that health care in Singapore should always be kept affordable. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that all Singaporeans have access to good quality basic health services at affordable prices, and to ensure that no Singaporean is ever denied health care because of his inability to pay. Whether Mr Ling and the SDP genuinely believed in the allegations they made or were merely exploiting public concern for political purposes, I was duty bound to clarify the matter. Therefore, during the Committee of Supply debate on 15th March 1996, I explained at some length why the analysis by Mr Ling and the SDP on health care costs and subsidies was wrong. I circulated three tables in this House to give the actual picture. One table compared polyclinic and GP charges for acute and chronic conditions, while the other two tables showed the total and daily average hospital bill sizes in public and private hospitals. I asked Mr Ling to retract his allegations and offered to convene a public committee should he refuse to do so. Although Mr Ling was not present in the House that day, he would have read in the newspapers of what I said. Far from retracting their allegations, the SDP welcomed the formation of such a public committee. In a statement on 18th March 1996, the SDP Secretary-General, Dr Chee Soon Juan, said, "The Minister for Health Mr George Yeo had challenged the SDP to a public committee hearing to verify the figures on health care cost published in the latest issue of The New Democrat. The SDP welcomes the challenge (and) looks forward to taking part in such a public committee hearing." That being Mr Ling's and the SDP's position, I proposed to this House that Parliament convene a Select Committee to verify the health care subsidy of Government polyclinics and public hospitals on 21st March 1996. Mr Speaker, Sir, some Singaporeans have asked me why the Government did not simply ignore the wild allegations of Mr Ling and the SDP. But had the Government not reacted, the allegations would have grown wilder over time. A few Singaporeans might even misinterpret the silence of the Government as confirmation that the allegations are true. Mr Ling and the SDP would then have been encouraged to exploit other public concerns for their own ends. Hence, I had no choice but to ask Parliament to convene the Select Committee in order to establish the truth and put it beyond doubt that health care costs in Singapore are heavily subsidised. Although it meant a lot of work for officers from the Health Ministry and public hospitals, I welcomed the public scrutiny. The Ministry of Health has nothing to hide. That the Government provides substantial health care subsidies based on cost is a matter of fact. The Ministry's affairs have always been conducted openly and professionally. I was confident that the Ministry's position would withstand the public scrutiny and emerge stronger. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two parts to my motion. The first is for this House to adopt the Report of the Select Committee and to endorse the Committee's findings. On this part of the motion, I would like to make two points. First, the Committee's findings are based on hard data which have been reproduced in the Report. And second, the facts and figures in the Report have been independently verified by the Auditor-General and are free from material errors. The accounting methods and standards adopted by the Ministry of Health and the restructured hospitals are in line with generally accepted accounting principles. In view of this, I do not intend to discuss the basis for the Committee's findings in detail today. Everything is in the Select Committee's Report. The facts and figures speak for themselves. The conclusion is absolutely clear: There is substantial Government subsidy of health care in polyclinics and public hospitals; and Mr Ling and the SDP had no basis at all for making their allegations. This leads me to the second part of my motion which is to regret the way Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP tried to mislead Parliament and members of the public. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel strongly about this. As elected Members of Parliament, we are under an obligation to the people of Singapore to be honest in our deliberations and to uphold the integrity of the House. Mr Ling and the SDP have not behaved honourably. They said they wanted to "hold the Government accountable to the people for its claims on health care subsidies". But in the end, it is Mr Ling and the SDP who must be held accountable to the people for the cynical way in which they exploited a public concern to achieve their own purposes. As Members know full well, Mr Ling is the Member who alleged in this House that there was no cost-based subsidy in health care. He is also the Chairman of the SDP which alleged in The New Democrat that "there is hardly any subsidy at all in health". It was therefore natural for us to expect that Mr Ling would be a key player in the Select Committee's work. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Mr Ling not only failed to shed light on the issue, he obfuscated it. His flips-flops over the course of the Committee's deliberations are by now well known to Singaporeans. Not only did Mr Ling not assist the Committee in its work, he often refused to look at the facts or listen to the arguments. Instead, he kept insisting that he was right based on what he described, rather frankly, as his own "simplistic" approach. The Committee had to spend time at each meeting, however, to nail down Mr Ling's latest position. Just when we thought that some progress had been made, Mr Ling would change his position again. And no doubt to avoid giving his final position, Mr Ling absented himself without any apology at the Select Committee's last session when we discussed the Report to be presented to this House. The draft Report was sent to him a few days earlier. Mr Ling's last position to the Select Committee was that he never doubted that the Government spent substantial amounts on health care. He proclaimed that his principal disagreement had all along been with the Government's definition and use of the term "subsidy". To be sure, Mr Ling's definition of "subsidy" is quite extraordinary. He said the term "subsidy" could only be used "when it is a first party's money expended on a third party. When people's money is being used for the benefit of the people, it is not subsidy." Mr Ling said that if taxpayers' money was used, it would never count as "subsidy". It was sad to see the way Mr Ling retreated to this rather ludicrous position. Instead of acknowledging the facts, Mr Ling tried to play word games. Had he stated from the beginning that his principal disagreement was with the Government's definition and use of the word "subsidy", it would not have been necessary for us to convene the Select Committee. A good dictionary would have settled the matter, and shown conclusively that he was wrong. The SDP's behaviour was equally dishonourable. The SDP jumped at the offer of a public committee to debate the issue of health care subsidy. Yet they came to the Select Committee with a written representation which was riddled with misinformation, inaccuracies and errors. Confronted with the facts, they claimed that they made a typographical error in a crucial statistic central to their arguments. As the verbatim reports show, and they run into hundreds of pages, the SDP had no intention of ever engaging in an honest dialogue on health care subsidy. They were uncooperative and evasive from the start. They refused to discuss the facts and persisted in prevaricating. As a result, it took the Committee a total of 14 hours to establish beyond doubt that the SDP's allegations were baseless and that they had tried to mislead us by misrepresenting key data. Mr Speaker, Sir, such behaviour cannot be condoned by Parliament if we are not to lose our honour in the eyes of Singaporeans. As Members of Parliament, we are duty-bound to defend and uphold the Constitution of Singapore. We cannot allow Parliament to be mocked or trifled with. I was forced to lodge a formal complaint with the Speaker about the thoroughly objectionable behaviour of the four SDP members who appeared before the Select Committee. That matter has since been referred by the Speaker to the Committee of Privileges. As my complaint is presently before the Committee of Privileges, the second part of my motion today regretting the behaviour of the SDP excludes the specific charges I cited in my complaint against the four SDP representors for they are being separately dealt with by the Committee of Privileges. Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked my officials to estimate roughly how much it cost the Government to convene the Select Committee. The ballpark figure they gave me was well over half a million dollars. This included manpower resources provided to the Select Committee by the Parliamentary Secretariat, the Ministry of Health and the Auditor-General's Office. We had to bring in the Auditor-General because of the way Dr Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-General of the SDP, had cast aspersions on the integrity of the civil service. He said "looking at some of the figures and some of the things that the MOH has said give us reason to be highly suspicious of figures." Dr Chee claimed that there was "a pattern here of overcharging, of overstating the charges." Mr Ling was there when Dr Chee said those words. Mr Ling did not contradict Dr Chee when those charges were made. For this reason, we had to call in an independent body to audit the Ministry of Health. I would like to record here the gratitude of the Select Committee to the Auditor-General and his staff for their good work. They laboured long hours into the night and over weekends, and testified before the Select Committee without fear or favour. And both Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang praised the Auditor-General for the professional way in which he and his staff carried out their work. Mr Speaker, Sir, while we had to spend much time and resources on the Select Committee to get at the truth, the effort was very necessary. The truth must be known in order that Singaporeans do not lose faith in their institutions and in the system of public administration in Singapore. The Select Committee has been able to settle the issue of health care costs and subsidies conclusively. Ironically, the stones which Mr Ling and his SDP colleagues wanted to throw have fallen on themselves. It is therefore more in sorrow than in anger that I ask Members to regret this shameful attempt by Mr Ling and the SDP to mislead Parliament and members of the public on the very important issue of health care subsidy. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Health. Sir, you chaired the Select Committee on the Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals. We had a number of very long sessions. We heard several representors including that from the Singapore Democratic Party. In retrospect, the work of the Select Committee is not without beneficial outcomes. The SDP had wanted to "hold the Government accountable to the people for its claims on the health care subsidies". They accused the Government of "a pattern of overcharging, of overstating its charges". They had cast serious aspersions against the integrity of the civil service. However, Mr Ling and the SDP forgot the dictum that those who live in glass houses do not throw stones. The allegations of Mr Ling and the SDP could not stand. Instead, the Ministry of Health officials have proven once again that they could be relied upon to administer Government policies effectively and judiciously. The Health officials are thoroughly professional in their work, ready and able to withstand public scrutiny any time. I am glad that the Government has lived up to its promise to the people of Singapore that health care will always remain affordable, especially for the lower income groups. The Medisave, MediShield and Medifund Schemes are available to help Singaporeans who are in need of financial assistance for medical treatment. What was noteworthy were the confusing and contradictory views expressed by Mr Ling How Doong at the sittings of the Select Committee. There appears to be one Mr Ling in the Select Committee and a different Mr Ling outside when speaking to the press. Even his understanding and definition of the term "subsidy" was changed over time. It started with below cost subsidy and not below market subsidy, and finally, subsidy refers only "when it is a first party's money expended on a third party ... the use of taxpayers' money is not subsidy". At the first Select Committee sitting on 8th July 1996, Mr Ling conceded that there were "market rate" subsidies, agreeing that the Government hospital fees were lower than that of the private hospitals. He also agreed that the subsidy was "substantial". On 2nd August 1996, Mr Ling again conceded this time that "cost subsidy" exists, and that the Government hospital and polyclinic fees were charged below cost. Having conceded that there were below market and below cost subsidies, Mr Ling must explain why he chose to come up with the nebulous and extraordinary definition that "when people's money is being used for the benefit of the people, it is not subsidy". It is important that Mr Ling clarify this, as I am sure the constituents of Bukit Gombak will wonder whether the terms he uses in the Bukit Gombak Town Council are any different from those used by the other Town Councils in Nee Soon Central, Potong Pasir, Hougang or the PAP Town Councils. Sir, the other beneficial outcome of the work of the Select Committee was we got to know Dr Chee Soon Juan and the other officials of the SDP in greater depth. We know from experience that there are individuals who are very impressive when we meet them for the first time on short encounters. We only know their character and true colours in subsequent longer meetings. When we engage them in serious discussions and debate, we know whether they are consistent and honourable men of principles. Fortunately for us, the Singaporean public did not learn too late. Dr Chee Soon Juan, when asked for the first time on 15th July 1996 the source of his data on Government health expenditure which plunged from 27% in 1989 to 5% in 1990, said he was not sure of the source of his information. Dr Chee subsequently told the Committee on 12th August 1996 that he had the copy of the Asian Survey article with him on 15th July. But later he changed his position to say that he had a copy with him, but it was in his files at home. Having personally observed his actions and listening to what he said, I could not help but to conclude that he was not telling the truth. Mr Wong Hong Toy said he was the one who calculated the figure of 25%. It became clear that it should have been in Dr Chee's book "Dare to Change" published in 1994. I saw quite clearly Mr Wong's reaction when Mr Kwan Yue Keng mentioned about seeing the chart in Dr Chee's book without prompting. Mr Wong's body language suggested that Mr Column 694 Kwan has let the cat out of the bag. Mr Wong clearly understood English and really did not need an interpreter but used this as an excuse for not correcting the figure in the chart purported to be calculated by him. Mr S. Kunalen calls himself the Head of Research but did no research. It showed to Singaporeans to beware of someone who inflates his status for which he is not. In reply to my query in the Select Committee, Dr Aline Wong, who is a University Professor, said she would give the research paper a "Fail" mark even for the first degree undergraduate paper, let alone a Ph.D thesis. The SDP is made up of a group of disparate people. There is no teamwork. Singaporeans should be forewarned if the SDP ever says they are putting up a team in a GRC for elections. SDP should be asked: how is it that with the four representors each did not know what the other is doing? Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP have mocked the honour and integrity of Parliament. Their intentions have all along been sinister. I join the Minister to express my displeasure for their inexcusable acts in misleading Parliament and the public on the important issue of health care subsidy. We should not allow again precious resources of the state to be used to look into such frivolous and wild allegations. The resources could have been used to help more patients for which the SDP claimed they were championing but obviously they do not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first clarify that the speech I made in Parliament in respect of health care cost was not a repetition of what was published in the New Democrat. You would recall that I had, in fact, told the Select Committee that I made this issue in January 1992, immediately after the general election. It is in the Hansard. Members can always check that. In fact, I have a copy here. Actually, it is on 15th January 1992. Immediately after the 1991 general election, I had already raised this issue. I raised this issue at most of the election rallies. So for Members to say that I want to cash in on political ground is all wrong. Why should I? Immediately after the 1991 general election, I raised the same point again in Parliament. Before I proceed, I propose to go through the speech I made in Parliament in respect of the health care cost. This is what I said on 11th March 1996 [Hansard, Vol. 65, Col. 872]: "Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government to do more for the poor and the disadvantaged. There ought to be more subsidies in medical treatment, ward charges and operation fee for the poor. As it is now, the amount of subsidy is just not sufficient. I suspect [I used the word "suspect"] that the so-called subsidy by the Government is not below cost subsidy but below market price subsidy. Let me cite an example. If you go to a polyclinic, you pay $7 per visit excluding medicine. Formerly, you may have paid $12 including medicine. It varies. So you can say, on average, you probably pay $13 to $14 per visit to the polyclinic. But if you visit a private practitioner, you pay about $16. But you must not forget that when you go to a private clinic and they charge you $16, the doctor must have made at least 50% from there. He must have made $8 from there. So the actual cost is only $8." Further down, it reads [Hansard, Vol. 65, Col. 873]: "If the Government is serious about subsidy, the subsidy should be below cost and not below market price. I cite a simple example. In Singapore, C class ward charges are $25 per day, excluding food, toilet paper, medicine, etc. For a C class ward, the Government claims that they subsidise 80%. So without subsidy, it comes to $125 per day. If you compare with a private ward outside - we have a number of hon. Members here who have clinics outside - you will find that for $180, you stay in a two-bedded ward with an air-conditioner, telephone and TV. So is this subsidy? In a private hospital, in a four-bedded ward, you pay $157, with air-conditioner, colour TV, etc. Bearing in mind all the infrastructure and equipment, everything in the hospital is paid for from the taxpayers' money. Therefore, when you talk of subsidy, the Government should [I use the word "should"] make sure it is below cost subsidy. It is very easy to work out this way. If the private hospital charges $200, how much do they make from the amount? If they make $100, that means their cost is $100. So if members of the public are asked to pay $80, that means the subsidy is $20. It is very simple. We do not have to go beyond that. The Government should do that. Then I agree that it is really subsidising Singaporeans." You have observed in my speech that there are two matters. Firstly, assertion of fact and, secondly, expression of an opinion. Expression of an opinion can never mislead. Why I say it is an assertion of fact I will come to it later on. If I am expressing an opinion, how could I mislead with an opinion? I will give you a simple example. I tell you the sky is blue. But you say, "No, it is not blue." Am I misleading anybody? Because you have eyes to take a look at the sky itself, it cannot be misleading. How can it be misleading? You have eyes to see for yourself. I could be colour blind. So the term "mislead" is not appropriately used here. You would notice that in my speech, I dwelt on two points. The first point is ward charges, and the second point is charges at polyclinics. I dwelt on these two points only. Let me come to my point on charges at the polyclinics. It is an assertion of fact. This is simply because, as I have told the Select Committee, I had been to three different doctors. I was charged $16 per visit on three occasions, and this was why I stated it was $16. That was my point. It is an assertion of a fact. Because I have personally experienced this. That is why I say $16 per visit. Compared to the Government polyclinic charge at $10, $12, $13, I am not far off the mark. Again, I expressed my view to say that of the $16, the private practitioner could have made $8. Thus, if the Government polyclinic charges $10, it is above the amount to be charged. That is the first point. The second point is in regard to ward charges. As regards ward charges, for Tan Tock Seng Hospital, a 40-bedded dormitory type of ward with no air-conditioners and no television, the cost is $140 per day. In fact, I have brought this to the attention of the Select Committee. I have got the tariffs from the Mount Alvernia Hospital where it is stated here, "for 2-bedded ward with air-conditioning and television, the cost is $180, and for 4-bedded it is $135, and for 6-bedded with air-conditioning, it is only $100." How would you reconcile the charges of a C class ward with 40-beds to that of Mount Alvernia Hospital? That explains away whether there is subsidy or not. You can compare these two hospitals and you will know whether there is subsidy or not. The next point I would come to is what is stated in the New Democrat. In the New Democrat, in the article "The Truth about Health Care Costs", there are four items there. The PAP Government claims that it costs $225 for a C class bed per day at a Government hospital, 40 beds per ward, with no air-conditioning, telephone or private bathroom. Of this, it tells Singaporeans that the cost is subsidised by 80%. But a B class ward, 4-beds with air-conditioning, telephone and private bathroom in a private hospital like Gleneagles, Mount Alvernia, East Shore, etc. costs $160. Yet there is no subsidy in these hospitals. Consultation charges at Government polyclinics, plus medication, cost $14 to $17. Consultation charges at private GP clinics, plus medication, cost $15 to $18. Yet the PAP Government claims that there is an 80% subsidy at Government polyclinics. Health care costs are hardly subsidised at all. For example, beds in a B2 ward in Tan Tock Seng Hospital are more expensive than the same class beds at Balestier Medical Centre. Indeed, the PAP Government says that it is subsidising 20% of B2 beds. I would like to draw your attention that of the four items there, the last one, health care costs are hardly subsidised at all. These apply to bed charges. It applies to the last item. It started off by stating that health care costs are hardly subsidised at all. For example, it states that it is confined to bed charges.

Can I ask the Member a question?

Are you giving way to the Minister?

No. Can I finish? Because I do not want my trend of thought to be disturbed. Now I propose to go, one by one, to justify what is stated in the article "The Truth about Health Care Costs", as I have done in respect of my own speech in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, are we debating on the motion or are we going through something which I thought should have been dealt with by the Select Committee?

It has already been dealt with.

I am not sure whether this is appropriate, Sir.

I think I will allow Mr Ling to continue.

Let me tell the hon. Member that apparently he did not even understand the motion. Do you know what is the motion about? The motion clearly states, in case you do not understand: "(3) Mr Ling How Doong and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had not been able to provide any objective data to substantiate their claim that "health care costs are hardly subsidised at all"; and (b) regrets the attempt by Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP to mislead Parliament ...". If I explain this item by item, I can prove that there is no such thing as misleading Parliament. You are objecting to me ---

The point is that this matter was discussed at the Select Committee. Why was it not clarified and made clear that you did not try to mislead the public and Parliament?

You have read the whole Select Committee Report. You have noticed that all these items were there. I am here trying to explain that from my speech there is no such thing as misleading Parliament. So I am here to justify, item by item, that there is no such thing as misleading Parliament or members of the public. Therefore, I need to go through all of them, item by item.

All right, Mr Ling. I recognise that you need to defend yourself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

But may I remind you that you only have 30 minutes to do so and I know you have a lot to say. So I suggest you carry on quickly.

I will come to the first part of the motion that the PAP Government claims that it costs $225 for a C class bed per day at a Government hospital. I am trying to relate to you how this came to be in our New Democrat. I cannot do better than by going through with you excerpts from the hearings of the Select Committee. BG George Yeo, the Minister for Health, asked this question. The representor was asked to clarify the first part of the New Democrat. The PAP Government claims that it costs $225 for a C class bed per day. That was the question put to the representor and was asked by BG George Yeo. So an answer was given. This was from a hospital bill of one of the patients. The hospital bill was handed in. And it was stated in that hospital bill that the cost of a C class ward is $225. Being satisfied with how the SDP came to this figure, BG George Yeo continued from there. I merely read out from what he had said [para. 425]: "Your point in making the statement that C class bed costs $225 is that the Government is not telling Singaporeans the truth, that the cost of health care is subsidised by 80% in C class wards. That is the conclusion in that paragraph. I acknowledge that we made a mistake, that Tan Tock Seng made a mistake in putting down $225. In fact, it should have been $140." Clearly, if there was falsehood in this particular statement, the falsehood originated from the Government because we merely copied from the hospital bill. And if, in fact, this statement is misleading, it was the Government which had misled us and the members of the public. We just copied from the hospital bill. And having been satisfied that the cost of a C class ward in Tan Tock Seng Hospital ought to be $140, instead of $225, this is what BG George Yeo said in the Select Committee hearing [para. 433]: "Mr Chairman, Sir, I am not saying that the SDP had no basis for putting down $225 for a C class bed, because there was in fact an instance where this had happened, it was a mistake, for which we are sorry, and that was the only point I wanted to make. I just wanted to establish where the SDP got its data from. Because if the data were from someone else, apart from Mr Kow, I would have worried, that there was another such case. But since he told me that Mr Kow, I feel quite comforted that he was referring to the same case. In fact, when Mr Kow was here, I apologised to him on behalf of the Health Ministry for having given him the wrong number." Now I go back to this sentence again: "Because if the data were from someone else, apart from Mr Kow, I would have worried, that there was another such case." And it was further adduced during the Select Committee hearing that this was an isolated case. But let me assure this House that it was not an isolated case. I would refer you to the excerpt further down there. It was not an isolated case. It was not the case of only one bill with the amount wrongly stated to one patient. I will go further down and show that. You will see that when Mr John Chu was questioned, the Government admitted that the amount of $225 stated in the bill was a mistake. Government admitted that it was a mistake. So I followed up with my question [para. 839]: "During the period 1994, could there be similar mistakes of this nature where you put down there as $225 per day? Could there be similar mistakes in 1994?" His answer was that: "Mr Chairman, if I may seek clarification. What do you mean by "similar mistakes"? I cited an example [para. 840]: "For example, in Sunny Kow's case, the full charge was supposed to be $140 but it was reflected in the bill as $225. So could there be other bills for a C class ward, instead of $140, you put $225? Could there be other similar bills?" His reply was this: "As I mentioned earlier, this number is fed into the computer and for all bills, regardless of whether it is C or A, it shows $225." It was fed into the computer and it was generated for a period of time. It could be hundreds or thousands of bills. Why? Because further down there, BG George Yeo said [para. 842]: "... They have made a mistake. That mistake probably resulted in errors in many bills issued during that period." "Many bills issued during that period." I have answered the first point. That was a mistake by the Ministry. It was not by us. Now we come to the second part regarding the private hospitals' charges. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo rose ---

Mr Ling, would you like to give way to General George Yeo. Mr Ling How Doong resumed his seat

Mr Ling, on this specific point of Mr Sunny Kow, since many Members would not be familiar with the details of his case, can you tell the House how much Mr Sunny Kow in fact paid for his C class bed?

I would like to make it very clear, to be fair to everyone here, that the quibbling is not so much as to the actual cost. In fact, I made it very clear that the quibbling is over the question of cost. It is a question of cost. Because we are all the time talking of subsidies. So whether it is $225 or $140, Sunny Kow still paid $19. He still paid $19 for the charge, which is the standard charge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Ling whether the error affected the amount Mr Kow had to pay.

No.

Did it affect any other patient whose bill contained that similar error in the amount that he had to pay?

I have not seen the other bills. I assume that it must be the same, $19.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is clear that Mr Ling is quibbling.

Now you look at my speech and the article printed in the New Democrat. Because the Government has claimed that it is paying so much subsidies, what would be the impression or perception of the members of the public? Instead of $140, you are saying that it costs $225. Members of the public will say, "My gosh! I have been subsidised to such an extent. The cost is $225. I pay only $19." That, to me, is very dishonest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to answer this later, Members would not be able to follow the mathematics. Can I ask Mr Ling, as a proportion of $140, what is $19?

I do not think one should or can draw a comparison. Of course, of $225, if you pay $19, the subsidy is higher. But it is an impression given to members of the public that you spend so much money and you pay so little. That is the point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Members now have a sense of the flavour of the Select Committee. $19 out of $140, which was the rectified amount, is 86%. Government only claims that C class wards are subsidised 80%. But, in fact, based upon the corrected actual amount, it is 86%. If it was upon the erroneous amount of $225, it would have been much higher. But Government only claims 80%. It is a very material percentage, Mr Ling.

But you must consider earlier on what I have said in this House. We even questioned the $140 cost by bringing in the tariffs from Mount Alvernia Hospital. For Tan Tock Seng Hospital, a 40-bedded ward, no air-conditioner and no television, you said the cost is $140. And I had cited earlier the charges of Mount Alvernia Hospital. It is clearly stated how much is a two-bedded ward. For Mount Alvernia Hospital - I just have to repeat here - 6-bedded ward, air-conditioned, colour TV, $100 per person; 4-bedded, it is $125. We even compared with a 4-bedded ward. Are you telling me a 40-bedded ward in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, no air-conditioner, no TV, costs $140, while a 4-bedded ward in Mount Alvernia Hospital costs $125?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to record an objection to the line Mr Ling is taking. We had before the Select Committee officials from the Ministry and from the hospitals. We had the Auditor-General to audit the various accounts put up. Mr Ling had full access to ask them the questions he now asks me. He did not ask of any of them those questions. Why is that, Mr Ling?

The Government says that the cost for Tan Tock Seng Hospital is $140 a day. I have the tariffs from Mount Alvernia Hospital. Is it not a comparison? For a layman, he just takes a look at it, makes a comparison and comes to the inescapable conclusion whether there is subsidy or not.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think this really proves the point that we are making. Mr Ling is now suggesting that the figures for Tan Tock Seng Hospital are cooked up, that the $140 are not the real costs, that we were somehow misleading him and members of the public as to the true cost of providing a C class bed. He had ample opportunity during the Select Committee hearings to ask the officials and to ask the Auditor-General to check the numbers to make sure that $140 was inflated. He did not. Why is that?

As I said, I was just comparing Tan Tock Seng Hospital's charges for a 40-bedded ward. I was just comparing. [Interruptions.] I brought this up in the Select Committee hearing. This is not the first time that you have heard of this. I will give you a simple example. An hon. Member: Why did you not tell the Auditor-General?

I will give you an example. You go to a sundry goods shop, for example, you will find identical goods there. One is $16, and the other is $14. Must I ask him? A layman takes a look and he will know it is $2 more expensive than the one which costs $14. You do not have to go beyond that. Anyway, my point is this. Why I am bringing all this up is simply this. If you look at the motion, it says that the SDP and I are trying to mislead Parliament. You read my speech and my backup of what I said. As I said, firstly, it is an assertion of fact. Secondly, it is an expression of opinion. How could these things mislead anybody? That is my point. So I am labouring on all these things. It is ironical that when hundreds or even thousands of bills are printed with the mistake of "$225", the Government just exonerates and clears itself by saying that it is a mistake. But when we said it is a mistake, no, this is fabrication, prevarication. I really do not understand. And when I said something, you said it is misleading. I really do not understand. So I would seriously want to hear from any Member of this House telling me which part of my speech could mislead this House or the members of the public. I would like to hear that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Ling when he said earlier, referring to the SDP's New Democrat, that when they said health care costs are hardly subsidised at all, they were referring only to bed charges. Does Mr Ling remember that after the first Select Committee meeting on 8th July, Dr Chee Soon Juan issued a statement asserting the SDP's position that health care costs are hardly subsidised at all without qualification and Mr Ling also issued a statement confirming that his position and the SDP's position are identical. Do you remember that, Mr Ling?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify here? I have stated earlier what I said in Parliament. There are two issues - ward charges and polyclinic fees. An hon. Member: Mr Ling, you want to deal with fees?

Yes, of course. What I am saying is that in both The New Democrat as well as my speech, we only dealt with the ward charges as well as the fees at the polyclinics. As I said earlier, I expressed my view in the sense that I had seen three doctors and I was charged $16. I was also of the view that probably the doctor made $8 from there. So the actual charge was $8. On that assumption, the Government should charge less than $8 in order to be considered as a subsidy, as you call it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think here we see it again. Just a moment ago, Mr Ling told us that when the SDP said health care costs are hardly subsidised at all, they were only referring to bed charges. So he brought us this thing about Mount Alvernia's bed charges compared to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But Mr Ling had conveniently forgotten that not long after the first Select Committee meeting, both the SDP and he issued statements confirming their allegation that health care costs are hardly subsidised at all, statements which Mr Ling told us earlier that he remembers.

I have just explained that I went to see three private doctors and they charged me $16. If they made $8, and the Government is charging $10-$12, is it not more than what the private clinics are charging?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is quite a grahic illustration of prevarication. Can I also ask Mr Ling, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether he remembers seeing tables during the Select Committee meeting showing the charges, bill sizes for admissions to Tan Tock Seng Hospital versus private hospitals and bill charges by disease conditions? Does Mr Ling remember those tables?

I really do not understand this line of going forward and backward. My answer is a very simple one. I have already told you that I had seen three doctors and they charged me $16. And I am of the opinion that they made $8. Is it not that simple? As I said, if you study my speech carefully, it is an assertion of fact as well as an expression of opinion. I am expressing an opinion. Rightly or wrongly, it is up to you. An hon. Member: There is something wrong.

As I said, rightly or wrongly, I am merely expressing my own opinion.

Would you like to resume your speech, Mr Ling? There is no more clarification. You have the floor.

I merely just want to repeat here. It is stated in the motion, "... regrets the attempt by Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP to mislead Parliament." I would like to hear from any of the Member pointing out which part of my speech has actually misled Parliament. That is all.

Nothing more to say.

I have said more than enough to exonerate myself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for those of us who were Members of the Select Committee and for members of the press and members of the public who have watched the proceedings, I think this appears to be so much deja vu. We really should not be replaying in the House the whole proceedings of the Select Committee again. We are here to debate the Report. We are here to shed further light on the issue and Mr Ling at this moment is intent on saving his own skin. Let us be clear. He is the Chairman of the SDP. He is responsible for the SDP's newsletter, The New Democrat. He is responsible for the written submission of the SDP to the Select Committee and what has he got to say about this. Yes, there could be something like assertion of facts, but facts can be proven wrong. Figures have been given by SMA and the charges by polyclinics have been verified by the Singapore Medical Association which is an independent professional body. Opinions can be misleading, especially if they are based on wrong facts. So if we carry on like this, 14 hours of debate and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the hearings, then they have come to nothing. We knew it was so difficult to make progress with Mr Ling at the Select Committee meetings. Every single step forward, there were two steps backward. At the end, he claimed that there was no such thing as subsidy. His definition of "subsidy" is so strange that nobody will understand him. If the Opposition wants to engage in a constructive debate with the Government, rightly over an issue which concerns public health care costs, surely, there must be some common starting ground. He said that he meant one thing but we meant another. How can we talk? The common understanding of subsidy is so well-defined in the dictionaries and yet his final position was that there was no such thing. I just want to share with the House some impressions I have of the proceedings of the Select Committee without going over the details of our examination or inquiry again, especially my impression of the representation made by Dr Chee Soon Juan and the SDP. As I said, Mr Ling is the Chairman of the SDP. He should take some responsibility for the submission of the SDP. But here, I am not speaking only as a Member of the Select Committee, but also speaking from years of experience in teaching and researching at the National University of Singapore. What disturbed me was the shoddiness of the written representation submitted by the SDP to the Select Committee. Since the SDP welcomed the formation of the Select Committee and said it was looking forward to taking part in the public hearing, one would expect that the SDP would take the whole exercise seriously and present a credible case to challenge the Government's position. What came about was a big disappointment. The written representation submitted to the Select Committee was full of factual errors. The various charts that formed the backbone of the SDP's allegation were very poorly prepared with obvious and gross errors in the headings and contents. Chart 1 was crucial to the SDP's allegation. It was supposed to show that the Government health expenditure as a percentage of total Government expenditure had declined over the years since 1970. There were four points on the graph corresponding to the years 1970, 1985, 1989 and 1990. The chart showed a drastic drop between 1989 and 1990, from 27% to only 5%. This drastic drop in a matter of one year would have caused any researcher to take a very close look to find out what were the reasons behind this and whether there could have been any computational errors. Unfortunately, Dr Chee did none of that. I recall that we at the Health Ministry --- Mr Ling How Doong rose ---

Order. Dr Wong, would you like to give way to Mr Ling to make a clarification? Dr Aline Wong resumed her seat.

I think what she is saying now amounts to sub judice because the four representors of SDP are coming before the Committee of Privileges. She is going into the whole thing. I think it is wholly improper. We should wait until the hearing by the Committee of Privileges to decide on this because she is going into the whole thing now. That is my view. I will leave it to the Chair to decide on this. I think we should leave it to the Committee of Privileges.

I will just remind Members not to make any specific reference to the actual complaint which is before the Committee of Privileges. But if the Member is not making any reference to the complaint, then she is free to carry on. Dr Wong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just analysing the way the chart is structured and presented from the point of view of what research should be like. I am making a judgment on a piece of research. As a researcher, I think I have a right to say what I think is the quality of the research. The drastic drop in a matter of one year would have caused any researcher to take a very close look to find out what are the reasons behind this and whether there could have been any computational errors. I recall that we at the Ministry of Health were extremely perplexed by Chart I. Our officials had to conduct a very time- consuming research on Dr Chee's chart. What are his sources? Is there any misquotation? Is there one source, or are there several sources from which figures are plucked out of context? What we found was quite astonishing. First, he used M. Ramesh's article which he quoted as his only source to obtain the 1985 and 1989 figures. The figures for 1970 and 1990 were not contained in Ramesh's article. The 1970 figure was apparently lifted from either a 1991 or 1993 article by Mukul Asher, but Dr Chee did not acknowledge this source. Finally, he superimposed his own computation for 1990 to show a steep plunge which he claimed prove his case that health care cost is hardly subsidised at all. It was only after many attempts that the Ministry officials finally succeeded in reconstructing Chart I, errors and all. It is like a piece of detective work. It was no mean feat, no mean task, and no one imagined that the figures for Chart I were derived by combining two incompatible time series in one equation. These two incompatible time series were: one based on current prices and the other based on 1985 prices. Also, M. Ramesh never explained his methodology in his article, but surprisingly, Dr Chee managed to reconstruct his wrong methodology successfully. I find it very amazing that Dr Chee was ingenious enough to reconstruct the incorrect method. But it never occurred to him that he should check his computation for 1990 to verify the trend against an extension of time series data between 1991 and 1994. The data has already been published. As a researcher, I would have gone to take a look at what lay beyond 1990 in order to see whether the sudden drop in 1990 was in accord with the trend or not. So he did not do his work right. I am speaking as someone who has experience with research and think that this piece of work should have been presented with all serious intention and deliberation, because the SDP knew very well that it was coming before a Parliamentary Select Committee. I was quite disappointed with the quality of the research. As for Mr Ling, my impression of his attitude at the Select Committee is that actually a lot of the times he was not really paying very much attention to the proceedings of the Committee. It was only when he was pushed and asked to answer questions that he really had to face the facts, so to speak, and what you see on the television snippets are those moments that he was asked to answer questions. As the Minister had already indicated when the Auditor-General gave his reports and so on, Mr Ling did not ask questions. When the Health Ministry came and gave their representation, he kept on asking only about Sunny Kow's case. Mr Ling How Doong rose ---

Dr Wong, do you want to give way to Mr Ling?

No. As he said, he had said enough. In the end, Mr Ling claimed that he had never doubted that the Government spent substantial amounts on health care and he said his principal disagreement had been only with the definition of subsidy. I have already touched on this point. I would like to conclude that personally I am quite disappointed with the exercise, but the exercise need not be seen as a futile one. I think for those Singaporeans who are interested to follow the detailed presentation and the statistics, they know how in detail costs and subsidies are calculated, that we have always done things according to internationally recognised accounting principles, that the Auditor-General verified the figures and so on. Singaporeans can rest assured that there is nothing to hide, as far as the Ministry of Health is concerned. Again, I would like to remind Mr Ling that he himself is a Member of the House. He has every right to raise questions about health care subsidies in this House and we would never hide from his questions. Why is there the need to take this outside the House and cause all these things to happen?

Yes, Mr Ling.

I raised the health care issue during the parliamentary debate. That is the first point. The second point is, in my view, opinion can only be wrong, but it cannot be misleading. The third point is, she asked why I never raised questions. This is because I was a Member of the Select Committee. I was not a representor. But if you have listened to her, what she said was that I was pushed to answer.

Why did you not ask questions?

No, I cannot just be giving an answer when no question was put to me. She said, "Mr Ling had to be pushed to give an answer." But I was a Member of the Select Committee. So it is only when you asked that I answered. I cannot just go round like I am a representor.

But did you ask? An hon. Member: You can also ask questions.

Can I ask Mr Ling, as Chairman of the SDP, was he not interested in finding out what was going on and finding an answer to his questions?

Can you repeat your question again?

Mr Ling just said that he answered only when he was asked questions because he was only a Member of the Committee. He was not a representor. But as Chairman of the SDP, surely he must be interested to find out whether his position and his party's position was accurate and correct, and therefore he should have asked the representors some questions himself.

As I have said earlier, my speech was made during a parliamentary debate. To me, there was nothing wrong with my speech. I went further to justify why I said those things and it was an assertion of fact plus an expression of opinion.

What is your opinion today? An hon. Member: Colour blind.

Sometimes colour blind, sometimes no. As I have said before, I used the term quite often during the election. I said, "The PAP is a chameleon." During election time, it changes colour. It becomes Father Christmas. I have said that before. I am glad that you remind me of that phrase.

At least you are not colour blind.

I have already given, towards the end of the Select Committee, my interpretation on the question of subsidy. To me, in Southeast Asia the only country that can safely claim to have subsidy is in Brunei. They do not pay income tax. Royalty from oil and petroleum is being dished out to help the poor and needy. That is my point. An hon. Member: Insurance company.

If I can go further, I should say that even the insurance companies are subsidising all their policy holders. For example, you pay $30 premium for an insurance and if you happen to fall ill, you go to a hospital, they will pay you $300 to $500. That is subsidy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a Member of Parliament went to the clinics three times and he was charged $16 each time. He suspected the doctors made $8 per visit. The Government clinic charges $10. So he came to the conclusion that there was hardly any subsidy at all. The Member came to Parliament and made a speech. His New Democrat published that it was hardly subsidised at all, and based on his assumption, based on agak agak, the Member was not only wrong but he was trying to mislead Parliament and obviously trying to mislead the public. I think that was the point he asked. I think he had just told us very clearly that he had tried and made attempts before, based on agak agak. How can Mr Ling tell us in this House today that he is not trying to mislead Parliament and the public?

I said earlier, based on my deduction that he made so much, and how could you say that I am misleading. As I said, it is an opinion. It is not an assertion of fact to say, "No, Government is charging the public."

So you made accusation not based on facts. It is not facts, right?

No, it is on fact. What is the fact? Would you want to know? I repeat one more time. I went to see three doctors. Is it not a fact?

I said the same thing. You visited three doctors.

Yes. But the point here is, you tell me, how does the Statistics Department go around collating all these statistics?

That is a different approach.

No, the same principle is applied here.

I do not think they go to meet ---

They go to the market place, check ---

Order. Mr Maidin, can we have one person speaking at a time

Mr Speaker, Sir, he has given me the floor. He interjected me half-way.

Yes, that is why I am reminding him to sit down to allow you to continue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Have you finished, Mr Ling?

Like the Statistics Department, for the cost of living, in fact, it was stated in the press that they sent their members out, go to the market place, take a sample of the various vegetables and see how much, then they come to the conclusion that the price has remained stable or has gone up. Mine is the same way.

From what I know, normally the Department of Statistics, after they have done a sample survey to date, would compare with the previous survey. They do not agak agak that they have made $8 profit. How can you use that as a basis to come to the conclusion, as the Chairman of SDP, that health care cost was hardly susbsidised? That is what you told us earlier. I wonder whether the Member would like to clarify how he arrived at $8. It took more than agak agak. I do not know. Would he like to reply?

If you calculate - in fact, this was done by the SMA - that a doctor needs to see 40 patients a day to make ends meet and he charges, let us say, $20, do not say $16, the overhead is $6 or $7, and he does not make $8 per patient, he cannot survive. You can calculate. With 40 patients a day, if he does not make $8 per patient, he cannot survive. There is no way. It is a very simple, logical way of deduction from there.

Sir, I cannot clarify, verify or ask the doctor or during the Select Committee meeting. Anyway, Sir, may I be allowed to speak in Malay so that I do not have to engage in a direct debate with Mr Ling?

Mr Maidin, please continue. You have started in English.

Sir, it all started exactly seven months ago when a very serious allegation was made by Mr Ling and his Party. Because it was a very serious allegation, we went through all this process of forming a Select Committee and adopting the Report, and all the way through there was clear and indisputable evidence that there was Government subsidy and up to 80% for C class wards and many others. But the sad thing is today we hear that because of this baseless allegation, and because Mr Ling does not understand the meaning of "subsidy", the Government and Parliament had to spend up to half a million dollars just to clarify and make sure that the public is aware that the allegation is not only wrong, but based on very funny and unbelievable reasoning. We went through the entire process, many hours of work, planning, thinking, preparing from up to eight meetings from 17th May to 24th September, and another session today. Altogether 10 Members of Parliament were involved, which include the Speaker, two Ministers and one Senior Minister of State. On top of that, officials from the Ministry of Health, Auditor-General's Office, Singapore Medical Association and many others, even members of the public, were involved. We sought their views because this issue is of great public interest. There were nine submissions and finally this 620-page Report of the Select Committee. Sir, it started as an allegation, a serious one, made in this House that health care cost in Singapore was hardly subsidised. In the end, we found out Mr Ling did not understand the word "subsidy" and had his own way of interpreting and defining the word "subsidy". Sir, I think the Select Committee had been very kind in saying that had we found out earlier or had Mr Ling earlier clarified that he had a different definition of the word "subsidy", we need not go through all this. I do not believe Mr Ling does not understand the word "subsidy". I think he had done so purposely to throw new light, to twist along the way, and trying to outdo the debate. Because throughout the Select Committee proceedings, it was clear that there was indisputable evidence about such subsidy. Up to now, in fact, everywhere in the world, when we visit many parts of Malaysia, in the kampungs, ulu places, kampung folks know the word "subsidy", and many of them do not go to school. An hon. Member: Bomohs.

They were not even lawyers. Even the bomohs understand the word "subsidy". Sir, in the past, the Member for Bukit Gombak had used the word "subsidy" many times without any special meaning, without any new interpretation to the word. And finally when it came to this, he changed and tried to side-step the main issue. Sir, I suspect that the whole idea of accusing the Government, of trying to undermine the system and the civil service over this issue was the fact that there was rumour sometime earlier this year about a possible general election in 1996. So based on what had happened, I suspect that Mr Ling and his party have tried to mislead not only Parliament, but the people of Singapore, by way of discrediting the Government and trying to make capital gains through this exercise. Sir, I think Mr Ling and his party suspected that Singaporeans could easily be misled, because of the way they change facts and figures. Now these proceedings of the Select Committee help me to understand why more than two years ago, the Secretary-General of the SDP published a book Dare to Change, because they dare to change many official figures, whether it is the health care report or any other thing, in order to mislead the public. This came out during the proceedings of the Select Committee. Sir, at the end of the day, I hope Singaporeans will realise that some people are willing to do many unbelievable things in order not just to mislead the public but also to make capital gains. But I hope, and I believe, their effort would backfire at the coming general election. Sir, I support the motion.

Clarification, Sir.

All right.

Mr Speaker, I have already told this House earlier on that I said the same thing in 1992, immediately after the general election, and I spoke again at a parliamentary debate. Why is he now suggesting that because the election was around the corner, I whipped up this sort of thing? The other point is this. When I spoke in Parliament, anyone of you could have spoken up that what I was saying was not true. There was no reply in this House. How many of you were here? Why? I spoke in Parliament, at the right forum, and none of the Members deemed fit to reply to what I had said. If Members thought it was misleading, it was falsehood, how come there was no response from any of the Members here when I spoke in Parliament?

Sir, I remember I had engaged Mr Ling before in a debate when he made some accusations about health care in Singapore. Maybe we should refer to Hansard and check. By the way, Sir, I would like to clarify. When he spoke about subsidy in 1992, did he have the same meaning then and now? Or was it different then and now? Did he have a different definition or the same? Because he never said, before the end of the Select Committee hearing, that he had a completely different meaning for "subsidy".

That is not the issue. The issue is in reply to his allegation that I only said it because an election was round the corner. I prove him wrong because 1992 was immediately after the 1991 general election. I brought up the same subject matter. So it is my duty as an elected representative that I have been bringing this matter up, not only during the two occasions, ie, the debate on the President's Address and the Select Committee, but I have been bringing this up at most of the election rallies.

Sir, raising an issue is not the same as when Mr Ling is asking a question. Raising an issue is not the same as changing facts and figures in official Government documents and statistics, in order to mislead the public to show that health care cost is hardly subsidised. He has done that.

You read my speech. My speech is the subject matter of this motion today. Where in my speech had I changed the data and figures? Point out to me.

I am referring to SDP, Sir.

You look at the motion: "regrets ... Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP ...".

Sir, as I have explained, you go to a clinic, pay $16 bill, you agak-agak $8 profit. You are misleading the public, Mr Ling. And you are doing it today.

Order, order. I think we are repeating ourselves here. Encik Othman Eusofe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be very brief. Firstly, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Health. The Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals has given conclusive evidence that health care is heavily subsidised and that that subsidy is a cost and not a market rate subsidy. And the Auditor-General has conducted an independent, detailed and thorough audit of the Ministry of Health's data in accordance with the auditing guidelines which are issued by the Institute of Certified Accountants of Singapore. The two Opposition Members on the Select Committee, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong, have recognised the audit by the Auditor-General as thorough and professionally done. So I think there should be no doubt that the Government health care delivery system is therefore effective and fair.

5.25 pm Sir, Mr Ling and the members of the SDP had made very serious allegations. A Select Committee was formed. They were given a chance to prove the allegations. But I think they did not take their work seriously. And that is an important lesson here for us, that is, whenever we elect Members of Parliament, Singaporeans must be sure that the Members of Parliament are competent and they have high standards of performance and integrity. I think, in this particular case, Mr Ling had shown what a disappointment he is and I am sure members of the public will take note of the poor conduct of the members of the SDP during the Select Committee proceedings. This is a very important point which I just like to take this opportunity to say - that we should make sure that the Members of Parliament that we elect are honest and competent men who can provide Singaporeans with good leadership, men who have integrity and committed to the interest of Singaporeans.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the blue sky may be the subjective description by the poets and the artists, but whether it is a rainy day or a sunny day is an objective statement of fact. We must not fail to distinguish between the black and white. Our debate today is to go to the root of the matter and discuss a very serious issue, that is, whether or not the Government has subsidised health care to look after our people and, if so, what is the amount of subsidy and what is the percentage of the subsidy. It is a very serious matter; it is not a matter of opinion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Health, BG George Yeo, and I also support the adoption of the Select Committee Report. In this Report, there are a few very important data: First, the Government's health care subsidy rose from $431 million in 1990 to $1,065 million in 1995, and the per capita subsidy had also increased from $159 to $356 during the same period of time, as shown in Table I. Secondly, in 1995, the Government's subsidy for class C patients per day in the public hospitals, including Tan Tock Seng Hospital mentioned by Mr Ling just now, was between 59% and 82% of the daily average cost. For B2 patients, the daily subsidy was between 62% and 73% of the daily average cost, much higher than the subsidy given to the A class and B1 class patients, as shown in Table 5. Thirdly, the net Government health expenditure, as a percentage of national health expenditure, rose from 22% in 1990 to 28% in 1995. The net Government health expenditure as a percentage of GDP also rose from 0.6% in 1990 to 0.9% in 1995 (Chart I and Chart II). Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Select Committee Report had verified that all the figures on medical fees and charges presented by the Minister for Health to Parliament on 15th March were all correct. The Report further verified the figures on the Government's health care subsidy as presented by the Ministry of Health. Apart from the subsidies to the public hospitals, particularly the C class and the B2 class wards, and the polyclinics, the Government also provides three types of protection safeguards in health care for the people, that is, Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. No Singaporean will be denied medical treatment just because he is poor and cannot afford it. This is the Government policy and a personal pledge by the Prime Minister. However, Mr Ling How Doong, on 11th March 1996, told Parliament, and The New Democrat 1st issue, 1996, alleged that "health care costs are hardly subsidised at all by the Government". They distorted the facts but are unable to present any data to support their arguments. At the same time, in the Select Committee meetings, Mr Ling kept on changing his stand based on his own interpretation of the concept of subsidy. His definition of "subsidy" is not only "extraordinary" as observed in paragraph 21 of the Report, but is indeed ridiculous ( ). In economics, so long as the fee or average revenue per unit is lower than the average unit cost, there is subsidy. But Mr Ling had presented various views on the definition of "subsidy" ( ), is it because of his personal ignorance that he could not understand this concept, or was he trying to distort the definition to confuse others? Chee Soon Juan and the three other representors from the SDP were unable to present any data in Committee hearings to support their allegation that "health care cost was hardly subsidised at all by the Government." Chee not only did not point out the source of the reference articles, but also quoted the findings out of context. Further, he had deliberately fabricated data. For example, he gave the figure for the Government's share in the total national health expenditure in 1990 as 5%. When confronted by the Minister for Health, he just dismissed it lightly by claiming that it was a typographical error where the digit "2" was left out. There is a world of difference between 25% and 5%, even a primary school student knows that. As Dr Aline Wong said, Chee, as a former academic, should check carefully figures he quoted from the articles and reports of scholars, and he should clearly cite the sources of his references. However, he and the SDP research team members had not only failed to observe the general principles and minimum requirements of research, they even resorted to quoting findings out of context and fabricated data in an attempt to confuse the people. This is most regrettable. The conduct of the SDP's representors at the Select Committee hearings infringes on the privilege of Parliament, and possibly an act of contempt of Parliament. The Minister for Health has already lodged a formal complaint to the Speaker, and the matter has now been referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is not proper for me to make further comment on the matter here. But through the second part of today's motion, we want to solemnly and seriously warn Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP that Parliament will not tolerate the ways they conducted themselves with the attempt to mislead the public. It will also send a signal to prevent others from repeating the same mistake. The Select Committee has spent a lot of time, effort and money to discuss the issue of Government's subsidy on health care in Singapore. What are the effects of the proceedings of this Select Committee? I believe there are two effects: On the one hand, the Select Committee positively had verified the Government's health care subsidy and presented data to effectively rebut the misleading allegations by the SDP. On the other hand, the hearings of the Select Committee had also indirect but positive significance: Firstly, it confirms the transparency of our policies. Any policy or issue can be raised in Parliament to query the Government departments concerned or to debate on the issue so that members of the public would understand the objectives, the rationale of the policies, and the problems encountered in the implementation of these policies. At the same time, groundless allegations can be rebutted, and rumours can be refuted. The Government's style of getting to the root cause of the matter, and its determination to show that "facts speak louder than words" ( ) is once again reflected here. Secondly, to maintain the dignity of Parliament. Parliament is the paramount legislative body of the Republic of Singapore. As Members of Parliament, regardless of our party affiliation, either from the ruling party or from the Opposition party, we must observe the code of honour. Otherwise, we are not fit to be Members of Parliament, and representatives of the people. When we debate on our national issues, we must present correct figures and facts, and put forward our arguments objectively. Otherwise, we will fall short of the mandate from the people ( ).

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have earlier given my name to speak. But I realise that my speech contains remarks that could be interpreted as being prejudicial to the Committee of Privileges' hearing. I therefore choose not to speak today but I will speak at a later date.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Health, BG George Yeo. In my view, when we want to doubt or negate any matter, we must have sufficient grounds and evidence to prove our argument, but not to fabricate data or to make use of specious arguments to deceive oneself as well as others. I agree with Mr Maidin that we do not wish to have agak-agak MPs, neither do we like to have blur-blur MPs. The SDP had, on several occasions, made use of the erroneous figure of 5% instead of the 25% to represent the Government's health expenditure in terms of the total Government expenditure, in order to discredit the Government, and then claimed that it was a "typographical error". It is more than that. It cannot be simply dismissed as a typing error, as claimed by Dr Chee, to cover up at the last moment. Personally, I feel that this is similar to the fallacious argument of baima fei ma [ ] (a white horse is not a horse) popularly used in ancient China. The SDP consistently uses this sophist tactic to mislead the people, in order to achieve its political objective. Sophism is very famous in China. I have here a book entitled "Complete Book on Sophism" which sets out more than 500 tricks in sophism. The sophist tricks used by the SDP are, according to my reckoning, not more than 10 types. Let me illustrate how the representatives of SDP had made use of some of the tricks mentioned in this book during the public hearings of the Select Committee and in the statements issued by the Party, in attempts to conceal the truth and distort the facts, in order to mislead Parliament, and even the public. First, let me look at the Chapter on Sham. According to this Book, people who deploy this tactic generally make use of specious reasoning, just like what Mr Ling did just now. For example, the book says, "Water can drown people. People who practise sophism will tell you that since water can drown people, the water in a tea cup can also drown people." Such specious reasoning may sound seemingly logical, but it is in fact a very irresponsible argument to deceive others. Another argument is that anyone who intentionally kills another person shall be sentenced to death. The act of execution is also intentional killing. Therefore, the executioner should also be sentenced to death. This type of sophism is ridiculous and irresponsible. Yet, the SDP has been using them over and over again, at the public hearings of Parliament, at election rallies, and in the SDP's party organ. Their purpose is to create a sham to mislead people. For example, in the recent public hearings of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy, the SDP, in order to make people believe what they said in the past that "people in Singapore can die but cannot afford to be sick", they persistently argued that the health care cost in Singapore was hardly subsidised at all by the Government, and that the people could not afford the medical expenses in Singapore, in order to gain political capital. In fact, in our society, the Government has taken upon itself the responsibility to look after the poor who could not afford to pay for their medical treatment, by setting up Medifund. In Singapore, no one is denied good medical care and treatment just because he cannot afford to pay for it. Such a thing does not happen in Singapore. I can cite you an example in my own constituency. Certain poor people in my constituency were admitted to the hospital for medical treatment and surgical operations. They could not afford to pay the hospital bills. As their Member of Parliament, I appealed on their behalf to the hospital to waive the payment, and they were all given free and proper medical treatment. You can read the articles and see the photographs on pages 85 to 95 of Petir, our Party organ. These are all records of true incidents. The SDP also likes to use another trick in sophism known as touliang-huanzhu [ ] (steal the beams and pillars and replace them with rotten timber) as described in page 87 of this book. In other words, it is to perpetrate a fraud. The book says people who use this trick would consciously or unconsciously use one concept to replace another concept in the process of arguing and reasoning. Let us look at how the SDP "steals the beams and changes the pillars". When Dr Chee Soon Juan and the representatives of SDP talked about the national health expenditure as a percentage of the GDP, they used the same tactic. They gave the figure as 0.8% and claimed that they were quoting from a figure given by NMP Dr Soin. As a matter of fact, the figure quoted by Dr Soin referred to the net Government health expenditure as a percentage of the GDP, as the actual figure of the national health expenditure as a percentage of the GDP is 3.1%. Substituting 3.1% by 0.8% is a classic example of "stealing the beams and changing the pillars" to confuse the people. There is another example in the book to help us understand how the SDP made use of a sophist trick of "stealing the beams and changing the pillars". It says, a customer went to a coffee shop and asked the shopkeeper for a chashao bao (steamed pork bun). Before he paid for it, the customer said that he would like to exchange the bao for a cup of coffee. After drinking the coffee, he wanted to go off without paying for the coffee. The shopkeeper asked him for the money, but he said, "I traded a bao for the coffee." The shopkeeper said, "But you did not pay for the bao either" He replied, "I did not eat your chashao bao, why should I pay you for it." I think, by listening to Mr Ling this afternoon, and all that was being said by the representatives of the SDP, you will find that they are more or less the same as described in the book. Dr Chee and the SDP are very fond of the trick known as moxuyou [ ] (equivocation) as described on page 51 of this "Complete Book on Sophism". The book says, moxuyou means "maybe there is". "Maybe there is" does not mean "there is". It cannot be taken as conclusive evidence to form a basis for argument. If one uses "maybe there is" as a basis to assert his argument to be true, then that is truly sophism. From 25% it can be changed to 5%. So, you can just equivocally find a number and fit it in. That is moxuyou . In their argument, they are also fond of using the trick of zhi lu wei ma [ ] (calling a stag a horse). Like what he said just now, "I believe it is right, but whether you believe it or not is another matter." "If I, Ling How Doong, a Member of Parliament, believe that this horse is a stag, you do not believe it is a stag but believe that it is a horse, then it is your business. However, I, Ling How Doong, a Member of Parliament believe that it is a stag." According to page 124 of the book, "calling a stag a horse" means to deliberately misrepresent, confusing right and wrong, confounding black and white - normally referring to improper or unjust words and deeds. Jiewai Sheng Zhi [ ] (digression) is another sophist trick frequently used by the SDP. Please refer to page 131 of this book. The basic characteristic of this trick is to create a lot of side issues to evade the main issues in order to confuse and mislead people. An issue which was originally clear and defined is brought to an awful mess of confusion through the introduction of many irrelevant side issues. Just now, Mr Ling said that the sky was blue and whether you believed it or not was not his business. I immediately turned to this book, and on page 54, it was there. A question was posed, " Chang'an (the capital of China in the Han and Tang Dynasties) or the sun, which is farther away from us?" The answer was Chang'an. Because, I could see the sun but I could not see Chang'an. So, Mr Ling can tell you, "When I stand in the middle of the road, I could see the sun but I could not see Johor Baru. Therefore, Johor Baru is surely farther than the sun." Just now, he said the sky was blue. Later on, he may stand up and say he can see 12 suns above the roof of Parliament House (referring to12 spot lights above the roof of Parliament House.). Such digression or sophist argument is irrational, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The SDP representatives thought that their ways of arguing would be appreciated by the people of Singapore. They thought they were very clever in the way they argued. In fact, this is a cunning and irresponsible way of arguing. If the people of Singapore want to know more about sophism, episodes of sophism which are more interesting than the tricks used by the SDP, they should read this book. They can learn about a very famous sophist by the name of Zheng Xi, in the time of the Warring States in China, 560 B.C. The tricks used by the SDP are far inferior to the tactics mentioned in the book. It is a far cry from what was mentioned in this book! I am very disappointed with the Member for Bukit Gombak, Mr Ling, for repeatedly going back on his word, during the public hearings of the Select Committee. First, he admitted and then denied that the Government had subsidised on medical cost in Singapore. He said that the money used by the Government on the people's health care cost came from taxpayers' money and therefore could not be known as subsidy. That the Government had subsidised is an undeniable fact. The Government's money is the people's money. The Government is just a trustee of the people's money. We all know that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources, and is therefore very vulnerable. Mr Ling said that the people in Brunei do not have to pay income tax. But, he forgot to mention that Brunei has a lot of oil underneath its soil. I think if Singapore has a lot of oil, then we can also consider doing so. But, the fact is, Singapore has no oil, no natural resources, no water. So, without a good Government and a group of responsible and upright political leaders, to effectively look after the people's money, if there is a problem in the way the Government manages the people's finances resulting in massive unemployment, people being unable to earn a living, cannot afford to purchase a HDB flat, then whose responsibility is it? Are you saying that it is the fault of the people? Therefore, a responsible Government will surely take great care and exercise prudence in using the people's money or subsidising them. I do not know whether it has occurred to Mr Ling and the representatives of SDP that they have already indirectly wasted a lot of our people's money. Take a look at this very thick blue book - the Select Committee Report. Together with the proceedings of the public hearings, as the Minister has said, some few hundred thousand dollars had been wasted. Just imagine, the manpower and resources involved before, during and after the public hearings! If we could save on this, we could have helped how many poor people in Singapore! The Minister and senior officials of the Ministry of Health could have made use of their time in a better way to plan and work towards better health care services for Singapore in future, to the benefit of the people. As Members of Parliament, we have the responsibility to censure such irresponsible behaviour, particularly the use of such cunning specious arguments to distort the facts in order to mislead Parliament and the public. As the Minister for Health, BG George Yeo, had said, Parliament should never be turned into an arena for child-play. The function of democracy depends upon Parliament and Parliament should therefore be accorded the highest dignity and respect from the people. Facts speak louder than words. The SDP's attempt to twist the facts to mislead the people will not be accepted by the people of Singapore. I therefore support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for supporting the motion before the House. Let me also reiterate that the second part of the motion to regret Mr Ling's and SDP's attempt to mislead Parliament and members of the public should exclude the charges I have made in the complaint to the Speaker regarding the behaviour of the four SDP representors when they appeared before the Select Committee because, as Mr Ling said, they would be, in a sense, sub judice and something that we should be mindful of. There are two limbs to the motion: one, to verify that there is indeed substantial Government subsidy of health care in polyclinics and public hospitals. I think that has been established beyond doubt. Because Dr Chee had cast doubts, we opened every drawer and every cupboard in the Health Ministry for audit. It is very important that the officials in the Health Ministry enjoy the trust of Members and the trust of all Singaporeans, because the officials of the Health Ministry and the hospitals perform a very important job, which is to provide the best health care system in Singapore which we can afford to have. And the trust of ordinary Singaporeans in their good faith and in the integrity of the health care system is absolutely important. My officials worked late into the night and I had to meet them from time to time to keep their morale going. The auditors were putting a lot of pressure on them to produce this data and that data. I told them that this is a very important test of the Ministry, that if we acquit ourselves well, then we can go back to our mission of looking after the health of Singaporeans. I told them that it was an effort worth making. I told them, "Look, you might have to work late. You might have to work over the weekends, but do it and do it well, because it is for the good of the Ministry and the good of Singapore." They rose to the challenge and I am very proud of them. The fact that health care costs in Singapore are heavily subsidised is a matter of fact. It should really not surprise us in this House because every year during the budget debates we vote hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose. If there were no health care subsidy, then where did all the money go to? But because allegations were made, and Mr Ling and the SDP refused to retract those allegations despite data provided to this House, and in addition, cast aspersions on the data, we had to have a Select Committee and this debate. But I hope we can get it behind us so that all of us can go back to our jobs, the officials, doctors, nurses, making sure that we provide the best health care system possible for Singaporeans, which Singaporeans deserve to have. It does not mean that the more we subsidise the better. We are proud that we have a good health care system. We are proud that those who cannot afford health care at full cost are subsidised. We are proud of our polyclinics. We are proud of our B2 and C class wards. But it is not our objective to have the polyclinics take over the primary health care sector. They provide only about 20% of the primary health care sector. They perform a specific purpose. They look after those in the lower socio-economic classes in Singapore. They do a good job. That is fine. The rest of us, including Mr Ling, we go to see GPs who can be just downstairs or nearby, and they provide a very good service. The market operates on supply and demand and prices are set by the market. That is a good system. So it does not mean that while we debate that health care in Singapore is indeed heavily subsidised, we are saying that the more health care subsidy the better. Not at all. Indeed, in many countries, too much health care subsidy or health care subsidy wrongly applied, can bring the whole system down, which is why we try to build in as many safeguards as possible into our system in Singapore to ensure that the subsidies go to those who need them; that there is little moral hazard and that those who can afford to pay should bear a share of the burden. That is very important. Over the years, we have built up quite a sophisticated health care system offering both public and private services and choices, ensuring those who cannot pay are fully covered through Medifund; ensuring those who are poorer enjoy huge subsidies in B2 and C class wards; and ensuring those who are rich who can afford the full cost of health care services enjoy a choice between private and public facilities. Our health care system has earned a certain amount of praise from people who are overseas, even from professional journals like the Lancet, which published an article earlier this year giving us quite fulsome praise. It does not mean our health care system is perfect. We have still got many things to do. There are many problems to be solved and it is a constant challenge. But let us have a debate, which is honest, which looks at the facts and which takes full cognizance of the pitfalls of a health care system that is overly socialised or subsidised. I think that is the straightforward part of the motion, which is that the health care costs in Singapore are heavily subsidised. The second limb is to regret the attempt by the SDP and Mr Ling to mislead us and members of the public. I moved this second limb without any pleasure, not to gloat, but because it is wrong to exploit public concern for narrow political purposes. Mr Ling said that he was only offering opinions. He never tried to mislead us. But even today, in this debate, he tried to mislead us repeatedly. He talked at length about errors in the bills produced by Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But until I pressed him, he conveniently left out the fact that whatever the error, it did not affect the amount which the patient had to pay, not Sunny Kow, not any other patient who received an error in his bill. Even after correction, those patients who were in the C class wards were subsidised 86%. We never claimed in this House or anywhere else that we subsidised C class patients by more than 80%, which we could have. But we did not. It is not something for us to exploit politically. But it was a material fact which Mr Ling conveniently chose not to mention until I asked him. He talked about the bed charges at Mount Alvernia Hospital and how cheap they were relative to bed charges in public hospitals. I do not know how Mount Alvernia Hospital calculates its bed charges, whether in fact it deliberately charges certain items lower than cost as loss leaders. But it does not matter. What matters at the end of the day is how much the patient has to pay. During the Select Committee, we produced a comprehensive set of data, comparing what patients have to pay for various conditions in public hospitals like Tan Tock Seng Hospital and SGH and in private hospitals like Mount Alvernia, Mount Elizabeth, Glenealges Hospitals. There was no doubt whatsoever that for all disease conditions, Singaporeans pay far less, even A class wards, in public hospitals than in private hospitals. Those tables are in the Report from the Select Committee to you. Again, Mr Ling did not mention it. He only talked about bed charges. Of course, he presents it in a very disarming way. He says, "Oh, my approach is a simplistic one. I see the doctor, GP, three times, $16. So do not blame me if I jump to the wrong conclusion." It may be artfully disarming, it may have even created some mirth, provided some entertainment, but I think it is more than that. I think in that selective suppression of relevant data, Mr Ling was trying to mislead us. Of course, he is very good at word games, at talking about how in his earlier speeches to this House he used words like "I suspect", "I was not sure", "I thought". Then he said opinions cannot mislead.

In my speech in Parliament.

But even today, he tried to wriggle away from another position by saying that when the SDP in the New Democrat talked about health care costs not being subsidised, they were referring only to bed charges, until I had to remind him that both he and his party separately issued statements, making it clear what they meant. At least on four to five occasions today, Mr Ling had again tried to mislead us. So I do not think there is any doubt at all what he and his party had been trying to do. If it were not such a serious matter, I think we could have just laughed it away or shrugged it off. But health care, and health care cost in particular, is a very serious matter. It affects all of us. It affects every family in Singapore. We worry about it for ourselves. We worry about it for our parents and grandparents. We worry about it for our children and grandchildren. At the end of the day, however we subsidise or cross-subsidise or charge, Singaporeans have to bear the health care burden of Singaporeans. Americans are not going to help us. Malaysians are not going to help us. Others are not going to help us. We have got to help ourselves. And what we want is to provide the best health care for Singaporeans at the least cost. Because if the burden is too heavy, however we cut it, it must at the end of the day affect the competitiveness of our economy, and that we cannot afford. In America today, it is 14% of the GNP and still rising. 14% - that is more than our health, education and defence budgets combined. It is fortunate that they have got large parts of their economy which are highly productive and very competitive in the world. And even so, 14% is not a light burden to carry. We know our population is ageing, we know how easy it is to incur health care costs when we are old. We all have parents, uncles, aunts whom we have got to help bear this burden. And if we are not careful, health care costs can not only impoverish entire families, they can bankrupt entire societies. It is an issue of great concern, and must be of great concern, to all Singaporeans and to all of us as Members of Parliament. And we must try our very best, work our hardest, to create a system in Singapore which is competitive, which offers choices, but which at the same time makes sure that no one is left by the side, left dying on the streets. And there are none in Singapore who are left dying on the streets. We all know that. Even compared to cities like Tokyo, Washington, London or Paris, if you look at the bottom 10% of society, they are better treated from the health care point of view. We have not done too badly. We have not done too badly at all. But it is a continuing challenge because we all want the best for ourselves and for our parents and our children. But in order for Parliament to pass laws which help us get the best system for Singaporeans, we must have the facts, we must acknowledge the facts, and we must have honest debates, based on the truth, not based on opinions, not based on assertions about the colour of the sky. There were parts of our exchange with Mr Ling today which had a certain Alice-in-Wonderland quality about it, where words mean what we want them to mean. If you were telling stories to children, that is fine. But we are not telling stories to children. We are talking about how to look after the sick and the dying. So words must have meaning, and words must not mislead.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House (a) adopts the Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals, contained in Parl. 5 of 1996, and endorses the Committee's findings that: (1) the figures for the fees charged by polyclinics and private GPs and the average bill sizes in private and public hospitals, which the Minister for Health provided to Parliament on 15 March 1996, were correct; (2) the subsidy levels for services provided by polyclinics and public hospitals, as provided by the Ministry of Health, were also correct; and (3) Mr Ling How Doong and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had not been able to provide any objective data to substantiate their claim that "health care costs are hardly subsidised at all"; and (b) regrets the attempt by Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP to mislead Parliament and members of the public about Government subsidy of health care.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Community Development why his Ministry allowed an abused child by the name of Winny Ho to be returned to her parents' care to be severely abused again after the parents apparently broke their original undertaking to ensure her safety.

I share the Member's concern over the Winny Ho incident. I will be convening a Committee of Inquiry to investigate on the handling of the case by MCD, hospitals and the Police. The Committee will be chaired by a Permanent Secretary from another Ministry, and will include at least one member who is not a civil servant. I shall give a fuller answer on completion of this Inquiry. In the meantime, I have reiterated my instruction to my officers that they should accord top priority on the safety of children in the management of child abuse cases. If in doubt, they should err on the cautious side in the protection of children.